Rulings (44)
  • Imiracle (HK) Ltd t/a ELFBAR

    • Upheld
    • Poster, Digital outdoor
    • 29 November 2023

    A poster ad and digital billboard ad for Elfbar vapes misleadingly omitted information about limited recycling options, mislead about the environmental benefit the products offered and misleadingly highlighted an environmental benefit that comes from a legal obligation which also impacts competing products.

  • Merlin Attractions Operations Ltd t/a Alton Towers Resort

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content)
    • 29 November 2023

    A website ad for Alton Towers Theme Park’s ‘Rainy Day Guarantee’ omitted material information about how it would be invoked.

  • Procter & Gamble UK t/a Always

    • Upheld
    • Television
    • 29 November 2023

    A TV ad for Always Discreet incontinence pads did not compare the product to the most appropriate version from the leading brand, and contained on-screen text whose placement misleading implied that 95% of women surveyed preferred the Always Discreet pad to the maxi pad from the leading brand.

  • Renault UK Ltd t/a Dacia, Renault

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 29 November 2023

    A paid-for Meta ad misleading claimed that a hybrid car drove “Up to 80% electric driving in the city”, which was unclear.

  • Borthwick Group (Energy) Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 15 November 2023

    A paid-for Facebook ad from a credit broker misleadingly suggested that it had been endorsed or approved by the BBC.

  • TJC & BLC Aesthetics Clinic & Training Academy

    • Upheld
    • Social media (own site)
    • 08 November 2023

    A Facebook post misleadingly did not make clear the nature, requirements, qualifications and possible registration details of a course, and contained the claims that the course was “Fully Accredited”, which could not be substantiated.

  • Essential Sounds Hearing

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content)
    • 01 November 2023

    A website for hearing aids misleadingly stated their products were invisible in the ear, did not provide a refund within the advertised thirty days and made a misleading claim about stock availability.

  • Codeway Dijital Hizmetler Anonim Sirketi t/a Codeway

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 18 October 2023

    A paid-for Instagram ad misleadingly exaggerated the capabilities of an AI photo-editing app.

  • HMK V AG t/a Windsor Mint

    • Upheld
    • Television
    • 18 October 2023

    A TV ad for Windsor Mint misleadingly implied that a commemorative coin took the form a normal 40mm coin, when this was not the case.

  • Shop TJC Ltd t/a TJC, The Jewellery Channel Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Television
    • 18 October 2023

    A teleshopping presentation for a light machine made medical claims for a device that had not been registered for those claims.

  • Accor (UK) Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
    • 11 October 2023

    A TikTok post on Lydia Elise Millen’s account did not obviously identifiable as an ad for the Savoy.  

  • UAB Forma Perfecta t/a fi clinica

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 11 October 2023

    A paid-for Facebook ad for a cosmetic clinic in Lithuania was irresponsible for exploiting mothers’ insecurities around body image; claiming “Guaranteed Safety”, which ignored the fact that all cosmetic interventions carry some level of risk; and misleadingly omitted information around the need for a ...

  • Just Spices GmbH

    • Upheld
    • Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
    • 13 September 2023

    Two TikTok posts on Sevda Ela’s account which promoted Just Spices were not obviously identifiable as ads.

  • Tony Parker t/a Dr Tony, AbilityBack

    • Upheld
    • Leaflet
    • 13 September 2023

    A leaflet for Ability Back Centres misleadingly claimed that a practitioner was a registered Chiropractor who held a general medical qualification.

  • Versus Law Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (own site)
    • 30 August 2023

    A page on the Flight Delay Claim website implied that passengers of flights cancelled or delayed over three hours were guaranteed compensation and did not make clear that there were advertiser’s fees or that consumers could only apply for compensation for Loganair flights through their service if they had first c...

  • London Cask Co Ltd t/a London Cask Company

    • Upheld
    • National newspaper (paid ad), Search (paid), Internet (website content)
    • 23 August 2023

    Two national newspaper ads, a website and a paid-for Google ad for a whisky cask investment company made misleading and unsubstantiated investment return claims and did not make the risks involved in whisky investment clear.

  • Prime Star Shop Ltd t/a Branshaws

    • Upheld in part
    • Press general
    • 16 August 2023

    A press ad for an Electric Heater misleadingly implied that their mini heater provided a viable alternative to gas central heating and that it could save consumers money compared to gas central heating. 

  • WeShop Holdings Ltd t/a WeShop

    • Upheld
    • Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
    • 19 July 2023

    Ads for a shopping app, posted to Instagram Stories, were found to be not clearly labelled as ads, with one ad also making misleading claims about the future value of shares. 

  • UK Bi-Fold Door Factory Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content)
    • 05 July 2023

    A website for a window and door fitting company misleadingly claimed to have an official partnership with Schüco and Cortizo.

  • London School of Planning and Management Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content)
    • 28 June 2023

    A website for a higher education institution misleadingly implied that they offered a Master of Business Administration (MBA).