-
Aramco Overseas Oil Company BV t/a Aramco
Paid-for LinkedIn, Google and Instagram ads featuring a Formula 1 car did not make misleading environmental claims.
-
EE Ltd t/a EE
A website failed to directly qualify 'unlimited' claims.
-
Vodafone Ltd t/a vodafone
A website made misleading savings claims and implied that a promotional price was time-limited when this wasn't the case.
-
Octopus Energy Ltd
Two paid-for social media ads, two website landing pages, a radio ad, a billboard and an email for Octopus Energy didn't include adequate substantiation.
-
Barclays Bank plc
A magazine ad was unlikely to give a misleading impression of Barclay’s overall contribution to carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions.
-
Shell UK Ltd
A TV ad didn’t give a misleading impression of Shell’s environmental impact.
-
TotalEnergies SE
A paid-for X ad for TotalEnergies omitted material information about the proportion of their overall business activities that comprised lower-carbon activities.
-
OceanSaver Ltd
A website and TV ad made unsubstantiated environmental claims.
-
EDF Energy Ltd
A radio ad was misleading as it omitted information and didn’t make the basis of the claims made in the ad clear.
-
ScottishPower Energy Retail Ltd t/a Scottish Power
A TV ad featuring George Clarke wasn't quickly recognisable as an ad and led viewers to believe they were watching a programme.
-
Lloyds Bank plc
A paid-for LinkedIn post for Lloyds Bank was misleading as it omitted significant information about the company’s environmental impact.
-
Wizz Air Hungary Ltd
A paid-for Google ad for Wizz Air gave a misleading impression of their flights’ environmental impact by not making the basis of comparative claims clear or providing verifying information.
-
Quintain Living Ltd
A website made misleading claims about the average saving customers would make on energy costs and claimed that a package included free Wi-Fi and work from home areas, when these were just included in the package price.
-
Gelcard Ltd t/a Water2
An email advertising a water filter caused unjustified fear or distress on the basis of misleading claims.
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 (14)