-
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 t/a Colgate Palmolive (UK) Ltd
A TV ad for Sanex shower gel seen in June 2025. The ad included a voiceover that stated, "To those who might scratch day and night. To those whose skin will feel dried out even by water" alongside scenes of a black woman with red scratch marks and another covered with a cracked clay-like material. The ad then stated, "...
-
Actegy Ltd
A TV ad for ‘Revitive Circulation Booster’, a Neuromuscular electrical stimulation device, claiming it could reduce swelling did not make clear this was only in relation to healthy people and was a temporary result. It also made misleading claims the device could improve walking distance and duration for th...
-
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’.
-
INSTITUTO NATURVITA S.L. t/a Natur Vital
A webpage misleadingly and irresponsibly implied that hair colourants were safe for people with an allergy to PPD.
-
Visual Stress Consultancy Ltd
A website made unsubstantiated claims that tinted glasses could be used for driving at night and condoned unsafe driving.
-
Health Line
Two paid-for Facebook ads misleadingly exaggerated the capabilities of laser eye treatment, falsely implied that they directly provided laser eye treatment themselves and didn't make clear that they received a commission for their service.
-
The Essence Vault Ltd
A paid-for Facebook ad made misleading pricing claims.
-
Marren Healthcare Ltd
A website for a rehab clinic referral company falsely implied that they were acting for purposes outside their business, that they owned clinics and that local rehab centres could be accessed using their website. They also didn't make clear that they received a commission for their services.
-
Jaded London Ltd
An Instagram post was socially irresponsible and caused serious offense by featuring a harmful stereotype by objectifying and sexualising women.
-
Sparring Partners Ltd t/a Gymbox
An Instagram ad was socially irresponsible and caused undue distress.
-
Go Night Night (unconfirmed)
A website for a sleep consultancy company misleadingly featured the logo of a professional standards body that it wasn't registered with.
-
The Boots Company plc
A TV and Video on Demand (VOD) ad condoned not using sunscreen.
-
Fanfinders Ltd
A paid-for Facebook ad promoting a free baby box featured an image which didn’t accurately represent what customers received.
-
Guang Zhou Shi Chen Ming Ke Ji You Xian Gong Si t/a MENGCOOL
Two Instagram stories on Jess Sheppard’s account featuring affiliate links weren't obviously identifiable as ads.
-
THG Beauty Ltd t/a Look Fantastic
An Instagram story highlight on Erim Kaur’s account wasn’t obviously identifiable as an ad.
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 (18)