-
Airbrush
Two paid-for Facebook ads and a website for a hairstyling company misleadingly implied they were endorsed by fashion brands, used unrelated influencer content to promote their product and didn’t have evidence to show that testimonials were genuine.
-
Bolt Healthcare Ltd t/a Bolt Pharmacy
Two paid-for Facebook ads for an online pharmacy failed to make their commercial intent clear and falsely implied they were acting for purposes outside their trade by presenting websites used for advertising purposes as independent review sites. They also promoted weight loss prescription-only ...
-
Bolt Healthcare Ltd t/a Bolt Pharmacy
Two paid-for Facebook ads for an online pharmacy promoted weight loss prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.
-
Kind Patches Ltd
A paid-for Facebook ad for a supplement company made claims that a supplement patch could help with weight-loss and made medicinal claims for products that weren’t authorised by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). The ad was also socially irresponsible and incl...
-
Phlo Technologies Ltd
A paid-for Facebook ad promoted weight-loss prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.
-
Express Healthcare Ltd t/a pharmacyonline.co.uk
A paid-for Meta ad and website for an online pharmacy promoted prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.
-
Beauty Pie Ltd t/a Beauty Pie Ltd
A poster for an LED face mask made misleading claims that it was clinically proven to reduce wrinkles in 4 weeks.
-
Menwell Ltd t/a Voy
Three emails for an online pharmacy promoted prescription-only medicines to the public against the law and our rules. The ads were also socially irresponsible by creating an undue sense of urgency for people who were considering medicated weight-loss programmes.
-
111 Skin Ltd t/a 111skin
A product listing for a skincare product misleadingly exaggerated the effects of a cosmetic product for ageing skin.
-
Beiersdorf UK Ltd
A poster ad for Eucerin Skincare misleadingly claimed that a serum was clinically proven to make you look up to 5 years younger.
-
Global Health Tests Ltd t/a Check My Body Health
A website for a Bioresonance hair test misleadingly claimed that the test could comprehensively analyse body intolerances.
-
L'Oréal (UK) Ltd
A Video-On-Demand ad for a serum made misleading claims that it was clinically proven to reduce hyperpigmentation in two weeks.
-
TFS Buying Ltd
A paid-for Facebook ad for a buy now pay later arrangement irresponsibly encouraged non-essential spending through the use of credit, particularly in relation to funding non-essential Christmas purchases.
-
Health Bridge Ltd t/a Zava
An advertorial promoting medicated weight-loss seen on the Mumsnet website didn’t make it clear it was an ad, used healthcare professionals to endorse a medicine and promoted prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.
-
Health Bridge Ltd t/a Zava
An Instagram post, TikTok video and a Facebook post for weight-loss injections promoted prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.
-
MedExpress Enterprises Ltd t/a MedExpress
Three Instagram posts and a TikTok video for weight-loss injections promoted prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.
-
Menwell Ltd t/a Voy
Four Instagram ads for weight-loss injections promoted prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.
-
UK Meds Direct Ltd
Two TikTok ads for weight-loss injections promoted prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.
-
The Cheeky Panda Ltd
A website for a baby product company failed to make the basis of environmental and comparative claims clear and didn’t have suitable evidence to support the claims made.
-
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.
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 (42)