-
Criterion Hospitality Limited t/a Zedwell Hotels
A paid-for Meta ad for Zedwell Hotels didn’t make misleading claims about the price of hotel rooms.
-
Mamedica Ltd
A website for a medical cannabis clinic made misleading price comparison claims, failed to make the basis of comparisons with competitors clear and didn’t ensure that people would be able to verify comparative claims.
-
TUI UK Ltd
A holiday listing featured on the TUI website misleadingly advertised prices that weren’t available to the public.
-
easyJet Airline Co Ltd
A webpage for easyJet used “from” price claims which misleadingly implied that large cabin bags were available at the advertised price across a significant proportion of their flights.
-
Abellio ScotRail Ltd t/a ScotRail
A website for ScotRail misleadingly claimed that they offered the cheapest ticket prices.
-
GA Trains Limited t/a Greater Anglia
A website page for Greater Anglia misleadingly claimed that they offered the cheapest ticket prices.
-
My Train Ticket Limited t/a mytrainticket.co.uk
A website page for MyTrainTicket misleadingly claimed that they offered the cheapest ticket prices.
-
OTTY Sleep Ltd
A website page for a mattress company made misleading savings claims.
-
AGN Events t/a Rock N Roll Circus
An Instagram post by Rock N Roll Circus failed to include all the significant conditions of a promotion.
-
Domestika Inc
A paid-for Facebook post for an online course provider misleadingly gave the impression that an offer was a one-off purchase when it was only available when signing up to a free trial of a subscription.
-
Storage Giant Ltd
Two web pages and an email for a self-storage company made best price guaranteed claims without evidence to support them. They also failed to make sure that quoted prices reflected the total cost people would pay and didn’t make clear when prices were promotional or subject to significant...
-
Trip.com Travel Singapore Pte. Ltd t/a Trip.com
Two paid-for Meta ads for Trip.com for a promotion caused unnecessary disappointment and didn’t provide people with sufficient information to make an informed decision on whether or not to participate. One of the ads also misleadingly implied that an offer was available during a part...
-
Select Specs Ltd
A TV and YouTube ad for a glasses retailer made misleading and unverifiable price comparisons with competitor products. The ads also made misleading pricing claims, including by failing to make minimum order requirements and non-optional delivery charges sufficiently clear.
-
Banquist Ltd t/a Winedrops
Two emails and a paid-for Instagram ad for an online wine retailer made misleading and unsubstantiated claims about the origin of their wine. They also failed to make clear the basis of the price comparisons and the significant conditions of the promotion.
-
Alibaba.com Singapore E-commerce Private Ltd t/a AliExpress
An email and paid-for Google search ad for AliExpress made misleading price statements.
-
Amazing Giveaways Ltd
A Facebook post for a prize draw wasn't administered fairly and caused unnecessary disappointment.
-
Amazon Europe Core Sarl t/a Amazon.co.uk
A webpage on Amazon.co.uk showed unclear options to purchase Amazon Prime and was misleading for consumers.
-
Octopus Energy Ltd
A paid-for Facebook ad for heat pump installation made unsubstantiated price claims and failed to include material information about a government grant, including eligibility criteria.
-
Origin Sleep UK Ltd t/a Origin Mattress
A website for Origin Mattress made misleading claims about reference prices and associated savings.
-
Wowcher Ltd
A website failed to administer a promotion fairly and caused unnecessary disappointment.
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 (25)