-
Motorpoint Ltd
A paid-for Instagram ad for a used car retailer made misleading savings claims.
-
Parc AI Ltd t/a Parc
A leaflet for a car parking app didn’t make clear it was an ad and caused unjustified distress by resembling a parking ticket.
-
Fortore Ltd
A paid-for Facebook ad for an investment competition website failed to make clear that gold and precious metal investment was unregulated and that the value of investments was variable.
-
Montford Group Ltd t/a Brittania Bullion
A paid-for LinkedIn ad for a gold investment company failed to make clear that physical gold investment was unregulated and that the value of investments was variable.
-
Rosland Capital Ltd
A paid-for Facebook ad for a gold and precious metal specialist failed to make clear that gold and precious metal investment was unregulated and that the value of investments was variable.
-
Sourced Consultancy Ltd t/a Oak & Mason
A paid-for Meta ad for a gold investment company failed to make clear that physical gold investment was unregulated and that the value of investments was variable. The ad also broke the rules by referencing an example of past performance that was unrepresentative.
-
Tarvos Ltd t/a 7879
A paid-for Meta ad for an online retailer of gold and platinum jewellery failed to make clear that physical gold and precious metal investment was unregulated and that the value of investments was variable.
-
DUSK (Retail) Ltd t/a DUSK
Four webpages for an online bed retailer made misleading savings claims.
-
Wowcher Ltd t/a Wowcher
A promotion on the Wowcher website wasn’t administered fairly and caused unnecessary disappointment.
-
Boots UK Ltd t/a boots.com
An online display ad for Boots made misleading savings claims. Another ad was investigated but it didn’t break the rules.
-
CC Response NW Ltd
Two paid-for Google search listings and a web landing page for an accident claims management company failed to make the nature of their service clear, misleadingly implied there was no cost to consumers and made misleading claims in relation to potential savings.
-
Exclusive Law Ltd
Three paid-for Google search listings and a website for an accident claims management company failed to make the nature of their service clear, misleadingly implied there was no cost to consumers and irresponsibly discouraged consumers from approaching their insurance provider. They also misleadingly implied that the u...
-
iRevolution Claims Ltd
Three Google search listings and a website for an accident claims management company failed to make the nature of their service clear and misleadingly implied there was no cost to consumers.
-
Eastern Savings and Loans Credit Union
A paid-for Facebook ad for a credit union irresponsibly encouraged the purchase of non-essential items through the use of credit, particularly in relation to funding Black Friday and Christmas purchases.
-
Riverside Credit Union Ltd
A paid-for Facebook post for a credit union irresponsibly encouraged excessive spending through the use of credit, particularly in relation to funding non-essential Christmas purchases.
-
Smart Money Cymru Community Bank
A paid-for Facebook post for a credit union irresponsibly encouraged excessive spending through the use of credit, particularly in relation to Christmas.
-
On The Beach Ltd
An email for On The Beach made misleading price comparison claims and failed to make clear if people needed to act quickly to benefit from an advertised lower price. The ad also failed to make the basis of comparisons clear and didn’t provide prominent information to allow people to verify comparisons.
-
Criterion Hospitality Limited t/a Zedwell Hotels
A paid-for Meta ad for Zedwell Hotels didn’t make misleading claims about the price of hotel rooms.
-
CB Payments Ltd t/a Coinbase
A video on demand ad and three posters for Coinbase, a cryptocurrency trading platform, irresponsibly trivialised the risks of cryptocurrency investment and implied it was a solution to financial concerns associated with the cost of living.
-
Mamedica Ltd
A website for a medical cannabis clinic made misleading price comparison claims, failed to make the basis of comparisons with competitors clear and didn’t ensure that people would be able to verify comparative 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 (41)