-
Esaverwatt.com t/a StopWatt
A product listing on Amazon for a smart home energy monitoring brand misleadingly exaggerated the effectiveness of the product by making claims that it could save electricity, reduce electricity waste and lower energy bills.
-
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.
-
Stacey’s World Rocks
A Telegram post on the Stacey’s World Rocks account was socially irresponsible by encouraging people not to pay household bills.
-
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.
-
Stove Industry Alliance Ltd t/a Stove Industry Association (SIA)
[Republished ruling] A website for the Stove Industry Association made unsubstantiated claims that modern stoves emitted significantly lower emissions than open fireplaces or older stoves, and that they were a low-emission way to heat a home. It also failed to make the basis of comparative environmental claims clear.
-
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.
-
Brighton & Hove City Council
A digital poster misleadingly implied there was a direct causal link between the use of wood burners and open fires and an increase in particle pollution, without having suitable evidence to back this claim up.
-
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.
-
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.
-
British Gas Services Ltd t/a British Gas
A paid-for Meta ad for British Gas, which promoted switching to a heat pump, didn’t have enough evidence to demonstrate that ‘up to’ saving claims could be achieved by a significant proportion of people and also failed to include all material information.
-
Centrica Hive Ltd t/a Hive
A national press ad for Hive promoting solar panels didn’t have enough evidence to demonstrate that ‘up to’ saving claims could be achieved by a significant proportion of people and also failed to include all material information.
-
WashWater UK Ltd
A brochure for a water conditioning and purifying system manufacturer misleadingly implied their water treatment systems could target and remove existing limescale, reduce hot water bills and help improve certain skin conditions.
-
Virgin Media Ltd
A TV ad for Virgin Media didn’t provide sufficient information to enable people to verify comparisons with identifiable competitors. Another issue was investigated but it didn’t break the rules.
-
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.
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 (30)