Rulings (36)
  • Byrokko

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 21 January 2026

    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

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 21 January 2026

    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

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 21 January 2026

    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

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 21 January 2026

    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

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 21 January 2026

    A paid-for Instagram ad for a tanning studio was socially irresponsible and misleading by suggesting that tanning could be obtained safely.

  • Chequp Health Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 17 December 2025

    A paid-for Facebook ad for weight-loss medication promoted prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules, and irresponsibly exploited people’s insecurities around body image.

  • MedExpress Enterprises Ltd t/a Bark

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 17 December 2025

    A paid-for Instagram ad promoted prescription-only medicines to the public against the law and our rules. The ad also encouraged new mothers to prioritise losing weight by using weight-loss medication which carried safety warnings for people who were breastfeeding, exploited their insecurities about body...

  • WLO Ltd t/a SkinnyJab

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 17 December 2025

    Two TikTok posts, a website and an Instagram post for weight-loss injections promoted prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.

  • Beautaholics Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad), Website (own site)
    • 05 November 2025

    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

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 05 November 2025

    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

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad), Website (own site)
    • 05 November 2025

    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

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad), Website (own site)
    • 05 November 2025

    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

    • 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.

  • Person(s) Unknown t/a YourDailyPatch

    • Upheld
    • Search (paid)
    • 17 September 2025

    A paid-for Google ad for diet patches made unsubstantiated and misleading claims that their patch could assist with fat burning and weight-loss.

  • 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.

  • Arrae Inc

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 06 August 2025

    Two paid-for Meta ads for food supplements made unauthorised and misleading medical and health claims for weight loss.

  • Cheeky Baby Products Ltd

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

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

  • Evolution Slimming Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 06 August 2025

    A paid-for Meta ad for food supplements made unauthorised and misleading medical and health claims for weight loss.