-
Byrokko
A paid for Facebook ad for a tanning accelerator misleadingly and irresponsibly implied that the use of sunbeds was safe, and that using their product during sunbed use could help people achieve a tan quickly and safely.
-
JD Tanning UK Ltd
Two paid-for Meta ads for a sunbed hire company misleadingly and irresponsibly claimed that sunbed use offered health benefits and that the use of sunbeds was safe. The ads also discouraged essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought, including psoriasis.
-
SFJ Group Ltd t/a SunShine Co
A paid-for Google search ad for a tanning studio was socially irresponsible and misleading by suggesting that tanning could be obtained safely.
-
Tanbox Towcester Ltd
A paid-for Facebook ad for a tanning studio misleadingly and irresponsibly claimed that sunbed use offered health benefits and that the use of sunbeds was healthy. The ad also discouraged essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought, including seasonal affective disorder (SAD).
-
The Sun Company (Horsham) Ltd t/a The Sun Company
A paid-for Instagram ad for a tanning studio was socially irresponsible and misleading by suggesting that tanning could be obtained safely.
-
Beautaholics Ltd
A paid-for Meta ad and a website page for a hair and skincare retailer which featured an LED facemask made medicinal claims for a product that was not registered with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and didn't have the applicable conformity marking.
-
Cleriva t/a NovaFlow
Two paid-for Facebook ads for a sinus clearing device made medical claims for a product that did not have the applicable conformity marking and was not registered with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
-
Invention Works BV t/a Silk’n
A paid-for Meta ad and website page for a hair and skincare tool retailer, which featured an LED facemask, made medicinal claims for a product that was not registered with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and did not have the applicable conformity marking.
-
Project E Beauty LLC
A paid-for Meta ad and a website page for a hair and skincare retailer, which featured an LED facemask made medicinal claims for a product that was not registered with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and did not have the applicable conformity marking.
-
Sweet Bee Organics Ltd
A website for a beauty products retailer made medicinal claims about an unlicensed product.
-
Indigo Sun Retail Ltd t/a Indigo Sun
A website for a sunbed tanning salon company made misleading and irresponsible claims about the health benefits that could be obtained from the use of sunbeds.
-
L'Oréal (UK) Ltd t/a La Roche – Posay
A product listing on the La Roche Posay website didn’t provide sufficient information to allow consumers to verify comparisons with identifiable competitors. We also investigated whether the ad made unsubstantiated claims but didn’t find it to be in breach of the rules.
-
Colgate-Palmolive (UK) Ltd
A TV ad for Sanex shower gel was likely to cause serious offence by featuring a racial stereotype.
-
Cheeky Baby Products Ltd
A blog post misleadingly implied that reusable nappies could help earlier toilet training.
-
Foreo AB t/a Foreo
A product listing on Amazon made unsubstantiated claims that an IPL device could reduce or remove hair permanently and that treatments was ‘pain-free’.
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 (15)