-
Unilever UK Ltd
A paid-for Facebook post by Boots was banned for implying that a lotion product could protect babies’ skin microbiome without holding sufficient evidence to demonstrate that this was the case.
-
L(A)B Life and Beauty
A website post and three Facebook posts by a skin and healthcare company were banned for claiming its belt product could help consumers lose weight without substantial evidence to support the claim.
-
Easylife Group Ltd t/a Easylife Group, Positive Health
A brochure ad for a skin product was banned for implying that it was effective at removing the appearance of wrinkles and removing skin tags, without adequate evidence.
-
Jemella Ltd t/a GHD
A TikTok post by Emily Canham about a GHD branded hairdryer was banned for not being obviously identifiable as an ad.
-
Basetan
A Facebook post promoting a tanning salon misleadingly implied sunbeds were the most efficient way to increase vitamin D levels and discouraged essential treatment for medical conditions.
-
Harvey Water Softeners Ltd
A leaflet for a water softener misleadingly claimed that the product produced glossier hair and softer skin.
-
STYLIDEAS Ltd
A tweet by Lord Alan Sugar and Stylsmile UK did not make clear it was an ad.
-
Procter & Gamble (Health & Beauty Care) Ltd
A TV ad and website claims for an anti-ageing moisturiser did not mislead about the level of sun protection the product provided
-
The Green People Company Ltd t/a Green People, Green People Co
A direct mail and a blog post advertising sun cream were banned for being misleading and irresponsible.
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 (9)