-
EE Ltd t/a EE
A digital poster for EE didn’t make sure their comparative claims were verifiable. Another issue was also investigated but it didn’t break our rules.
-
Eurowings GmbH t/a Eurowings
A paid-for Google ad for an airline gave a misleading impression of their flights environmental impact and implied that people could pay to fully offset the carbon emissions from a specific flight without suitable evidence to support these claims.
-
Origin Sleep UK Ltd t/a Origin Mattress
A website for a mattress company made misleading savings claims and misleadingly implied that discount offers were time-limited and that people needed to act more quickly than necessary to take advantage of an offer.
-
Qatar Airways Group QCSC t/a Qatar Airways
Two paid-for LinkedIn posts for an airline gave a misleading impression of their flights environmental impact and implied that people could pay to fully offset the carbon emissions of a specific flight without suitable evidence to support this claim.
-
Grain Connect Ltd
An email from a broadband company made misleading price rise claims about an identifiable competitor.
-
Adidas UK Ltd t/a adidas
A paid-for Google ad for adidas made misleading environmental claims.
-
Big Fang Collective Ltd t/a Golf Fang
A leaflet for an indoor golf venue didn’t make clear it was an ad and caused unjustified distress by resembling a parking ticket.
-
Calvin Klein Europe BV t/a Calvin Klein
A paid-for Google ad for Calvin Klein made misleading environmental claims.
-
Uniqlo (UK) Ltd t/a UNIQLO
A paid- for Google ad for UNIQLO made misleading environmental claims.
-
MN2S Management Ltd t/a MN2S
A website for a talent agency misleadingly stated that Seph Lawless was represented by the agency and was available to be booked through them.
-
Pure Cremation Funeral Planning Ltd t/a Pure Cremation
A TV ad for Pure Cremation misleadingly implied that their standard funeral plan included an attended funeral service and failed to make clear where a plan was limited to a non-attended cremation.
-
StudySmarter GmbH
Three job listings on a student resource website misleadingly implied they were genuine job vacancies and falsely implied that the advertiser was acting for purposes outside its business.
-
Guangzhoushi Yingyi Maoyi Youxiangongsi t/a LANPN
An Instagram post on Gemma Markland’s account wasn’t obviously identifiable as an ad.
-
Course Accreditation Ltd
A website and a paid-for Google search ad for an accreditation company didn’t provide suitable evidence to back up objective claims, including comparative claims. The ads also misleadingly implied their accreditation was recognised by insurers and that t...
-
Medilife Clinic Enfield
A paid-for Instagram ad for a health clinic made claims that their treatments could alleviate or treat the traits of autism without suitable evidence to support these claims. The ad also discouraged essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought.
-
The Professional Development Consortium Ltd t/a CPD Standards Office
Two paid-for Meta ads for a training accreditation company made misleading comparative claims with identifiable competitors which weren’t supported by evidence and couldn’t be verified by consumers.
-
Dollead Technology Ltd
A paid-for search ad for a vacuum review website failed to make their commercial intent clear and falsely implied they were acting for purposes outside their trade by presenting websites used for marketing purposes as independent review sites.
-
Easy as HGV Ltd
Three websites for Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) training service providers made misleading claims about HGV test pass rates and falsely implied they were acting for purposes outside their business.
-
Ecoflow Innovation UK
A website for a sustainable energy company misleadingly claimed that their products could be installed without using a certified installer or electrician.
-
Global Health Tests Ltd t/a Check My Body Health
A website for a Bioresonance hair test misleadingly claimed that the test could comprehensively analyse body intolerances.
Rulings
Our rulings are published every Wednesday and set out on the public record how, following a formal investigation, the advertising rules apply and where we draw the line in judging whether an ad has broken the rules. We also publish a list of companies and organisations which agree to amend or withdraw their ad without being subject to a formal ruling.
Rulings (42)