-
Barrhead Travel Service Ltd t/a Barrhead Travel
A paid-for Google ad for a travel agency gave a misleading impression of the advertised cruises’ environmental impact by failing to make the basis of environmental claims clear and not holding robust substantiation to support them.
-
Sunshine Cruise Holidays Ltd t/a cruise 1st
A webpage advertising a cruise operator failed to make the basis of environmental and comparative claims clear, didn’t hold appropriate evidence to support such claims and omitted material information about the environmental impact of the cruises they sold.
-
TravelCircle Ltd t/a Cruise Circle
A webpage advertising cruise operator failed to make the basis of environmental and comparative claims clear and didn’t substantiate the environmental claims made in relation to the full life cycle of a cruise.
-
www.Cruise.co.uk Ltd t/a SeaScanner
A webpage advertising a cruise operator made misleading environmental and comparative claims, including by omitting material information about the environmental impact of the advertised cruise ship.
-
Contact Solar Ltd
A paid-for Bing search ad for a solar panel installation company made unsubstantiated price claims and omitted material information that was likely to affect consumers’ understanding of the price claim.
-
uSwitch Ltd
A marketing email did not mislead consumers about an exclusive offer to switch gas suppliers.
-
Aira Home UK Ltd
A paid-for Meta ad for heat pump installation omitted material information about the eligibility criteria for government funding available for installing the pumps.
-
EDF Energy Ltd t/a EDF
A paid-for Google ad for heat pump installation omitted material information about the eligibility criteria for government funding available for installing the pumps.
-
Energystore Ltd
A local press ad for a loft and wall cavity insulation installation company was misleading because it omitted material information about the government funding available for installing insulation products.
-
Ovo Energy Ltd
A paid-for Meta ad for insulation installation did not make misleading price claims and included material information about a government grant, including eligibility criteria.
-
Octopus Energy Ltd
A paid-for Facebook ad for heat pump installation made unsubstantiated price claims and failed to include material information about a government grant, including eligibility criteria.
-
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.
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 (23)