-
ATR Brands Ltd t/a Antler
Two emails and a website page for a luggage retailer misleadingly implied a promotion included all products they sold, by stating a promotion related to “everything” or applied “sitewide” when this was not the case.
-
The Boots Company PLC t/a Boots
A national press ad for Boots featured a promotion that wasn’t administered fairly and caused participants unnecessary disappointment.
-
Nectar Sleep Ltd
The homepage for the Nectar Sleep website made misleading saving claims and didn’t make the basis of their savings claims clear. They also made comparisons against other brands’ prices without ensuring the claims were based on the actual price of the product.
-
Motorpoint Ltd
A paid-for Instagram ad for a used car retailer made misleading savings claims.
-
Parc AI Ltd t/a Parc
A leaflet for a car parking app didn’t make clear it was an ad and caused unjustified distress by resembling a parking ticket.
-
DUSK (Retail) Ltd t/a DUSK
Four webpages for an online bed retailer made misleading savings claims.
-
Wowcher Ltd t/a Wowcher
A promotion on the Wowcher website wasn’t administered fairly and caused unnecessary disappointment.
-
Boots UK Ltd t/a boots.com
An online display ad for Boots made misleading savings claims. Another ad was investigated but it didn’t break the rules.
-
DBZ Marketplace Online Ltd t/a Debenhams
Two video display banners for Debenhams made misleading savings claims.
-
John Lewis plc
A paid-for Facebook ad and an online display ad for John Lewis made misleading savings claims.
-
Shop Direct Home Shopping Ltd t/a Very
Two website pages for Very made misleading savings claims.
-
Bakkavor Ltd
A promotion featured on the packaging of a cookie dough dessert misleadingly implied that particular products were included in the promotion, causing unnecessary disappointment.
-
Whaleco UK Ltd t/a Temu
Two paid-for Facebook ads for Temu were misleading by contradicting the terms and conditions that applied to an advertised promotion.
-
On The Beach Ltd
An email for On The Beach made misleading price comparison claims and failed to make clear if people needed to act quickly to benefit from an advertised lower price. The ad also failed to make the basis of comparisons clear and didn’t provide prominent information to allow people to verify comparisons.
-
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.
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 (28)