-
Tesco Stores Ltd t/a Tesco
A newspaper ad for Tesco did not make misleading price comparison claims and did not break the CAP Code.
-
Ideal Shopping Direct Ltd t/a Create and Craft
A website ad for a crafting retailer’s discount service was banned as it did not represent a genuine saving against the usual selling price.
-
Asos.com Ltd
A marketing communication email from ASOS was banned for implying all their products were included in an offer when this was not the case.
-
Maple Syrup Media Ltd t/a Quidco, Quidco.com
A website and Facebook ad for a cashback service provider were banned for making misleading claims.
-
Learning Group Ltd t/a Montessori Tutors
A website ad for a tutoring company was banned for quoting earnings figures that could not be adequately substantiated.
-
Watches of Switzerland Company Ltd t/a Goldsmiths
A website post by a jewellery retailer was banned for making misleading savings claims about a pair of earrings.
-
DSG Retail Ltd t/a Currys PC World
A TV ad for Currys PC World was banned for irresponsibly encouraging excessive spending through the use of credit, particularly in relation to purchasing higher value Christmas gifts with a ‘pay later’ payment method.
-
I Saw it First Ltd
A website ad for an online clothing retailer was banned for misleadingly implying that discount codes and discounted prices applied to certain products when this was not the case.
-
Smart Metering Communications Body Ltd t/a Smart Energy GB
A TV and radio ad for a smart meter which stated that the product could help consumers to save money on their bills was not found to be misleading.
-
DSG Retail Ltd t/a Currys PC World
Two TV ads for Currys PC World were banned for misleadingly implying that consumers were able to purchase a TV for half price when this was not the case.
-
Hutchison 3G UK Ltd t/a 3
A TV, website and paid-for search ad by Three Mobile were banned for not holding adequate substantiation to support the claim that they were the ‘best network for data.”
-
Studio Retail Ltd
A TV and video on demand ad for a shopping retailer was banned for irresponsibly encouraging excessive spending.
-
In The Style Fashion Ltd t/a In the Style
A website and Instagram post by an online fashion retailer were banned for implying that all their products were included in an offer when this was not actually the case.
-
Lidl Great Britain Ltd
Two leaflets, a website, and two newspaper ads for Lidl products were banned for quoting unsubstantiated RRP claims.
-
Rightio Ltd
A paid-for Google Ad for a plumbing service misleadingly stated that a call-out charge did not apply for diagnostic work carried out by engineers.
-
The Trade Centre Group plc t/a The Trade Centre UK, The Trade Centre Wales
A radio ad for a used car dealer was banned for presenting the terms and conditions in an unclear and ambiguous manner.
-
Anglian Windows Ltd t/a Anglian Home Improvements
A website ad for home appliances was banned for making misleading savings claims.
Rulings
Our rulings are published every Wednesday and set out on the public record how, following 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, following receipt of a complaint, agreed to amend or withdraw their ad without the need for a formal investigation.
Rulings (17)