Rulings (15)
  • Sweet Bee Organics Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 29 October 2025

    A website for a beauty products retailer made medicinal claims about an unlicensed product.

  • Indigo Sun Retail Ltd t/a Indigo Sun

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 17 September 2025

    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

    • Upheld in part
    • Internet (classified)
    • 17 September 2025

    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

    • Upheld
    • 20 August 2025

    A TV ad for Sanex shower gel was likely to cause serious offence by featuring a racial stereotype.

  • Cheeky Baby Products Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 06 August 2025

    A blog post misleadingly implied that reusable nappies could help earlier toilet training.

  • Beautyjenics Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 16 April 2025

    A paid-for Facebook ad for Beautyjenics, a cosmetic treatment provider, irresponsibly pressured consumers into booking, and trivialised the risks of, “liquid BBLs” (Brazilian Butt Lift) and exploited women’s insecurities surrounding body image.

  • Bomb Doll Aesthetics

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 16 April 2025

    A paid-for Facebook ad for Bomb Doll Aesthetics, a Black Friday promotion, irresponsibly pressured consumers into booking, and trivialised the risks of, “liquid BBLs” (Brazilian Butt Lift).

  • CCskinlondondubai

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 16 April 2025

    A paid-for Facebook ad for CCskinlondondubai, a cosmetic treatment provider, irresponsibly pressured consumers into booking, and trivialised the risks of, “liquid BBLs” (Brazilian Butt Lift) and exploited women’s insecurities surrounding body image.

  • EME Aesthetics & Beauty Academy Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 16 April 2025

    An Instagram ad for EME Aesthetics, a Black Friday promotion, irresponsibly pressured consumers into booking, and trivialised the risks of, “liquid BBLs” (Brazilian Butt Lift).

  • NKD Medical Ltd t/a Dr Ducu London

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 16 April 2025

    A paid-for Instagram ad for Dr. Ducu, a cosmetic treatment provider, irresponsibly pressured consumers into booking, and trivialised the risks of, “liquid BBLs” (Brazilian Butt Lift).

  • Rejuvenate Academy Ltd t/a Rejuvenate Clinics

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 16 April 2025

    A paid-for Facebook ad for Rejuvenate Clinics, a cosmetic treatment provider, irresponsibly pressured consumers into booking, and trivialised the risks of, “liquid BBLs” (Brazilian Butt Lift).

  • Foreo AB t/a Foreo

    • Upheld in part
    • Internet
    • 09 April 2025

    A product listing on Amazon made unsubstantiated claims that an IPL device could reduce or remove hair permanently and that treatments was ‘pain-free’.

  • The Essence Vault Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 15 January 2025

    A paid-for Facebook ad made misleading pricing claims.   

  • Valterous Ltd t/a Therapie Clinic

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 18 December 2024

    A paid-for Facebook ad indirectly advertised a prescription only medicine to the public.

  • Jaded London Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (own site)
    • 11 December 2024

    An Instagram post was socially irresponsible and caused serious offense by featuring a harmful stereotype by objectifying and sexualising women.