-
Bolt Healthcare Ltd t/a Bolt Pharmacy
Two paid-for Facebook ads for an online pharmacy failed to make their commercial intent clear and falsely implied they were acting for purposes outside their trade by presenting websites used for advertising purposes as independent review sites. They also promoted weight loss prescription-only ...
-
Bolt Healthcare Ltd t/a Bolt Pharmacy
Two paid-for Facebook ads for an online pharmacy promoted weight loss prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.
-
BoyleSports (Gibraltar) Ltd t/a BoyleSports
A paid-for online display ad for a gambling company encouraged gambling behaviour that was socially irresponsible and could lead to financial harm by encouraging frequent and repetitive participation.
-
Dignity Funerals Ltd t/a Simplicity Cremations
Two TV ads for a funeral provider didn’t make clear that the funeral plans advertised were for non-attended cremations only.
-
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.
-
Kind Patches Ltd
A paid-for Facebook ad for a supplement company made claims that a supplement patch could help with weight-loss and made medicinal claims for products that weren’t authorised by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). The ad was also socially irresponsible and incl...
-
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.
-
Phlo Technologies Ltd
A paid-for Facebook ad promoted weight-loss prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Express Healthcare Ltd t/a pharmacyonline.co.uk
A paid-for Meta ad and website for an online pharmacy promoted prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.
-
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.
-
Menwell Ltd t/a Voy
Three emails for an online pharmacy promoted prescription-only medicines to the public against the law and our rules. The ads were also socially irresponsible by creating an undue sense of urgency for people who were considering medicated weight-loss programmes.
-
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...
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 (53)