-
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.
-
TUI UK Ltd
A holiday listing featured on the TUI website misleadingly advertised prices that weren’t available to the public.
-
easyJet Airline Co Ltd
A webpage for easyJet used “from” price claims which misleadingly implied that large cabin bags were available at the advertised price across a significant proportion of their flights.
-
Whiskey & Wealth Club Ltd
A paid-for Facebook ad, landing page and website for a whiskey cask investment company made misleading claims about investment returns. The ad also failed to make clear that cask whiskey investments were unregulated and that the value of investments was variable.
-
Dean Harrison
Three paid-for Google search listings and three websites for an accident claims management company falsely implied that they were acting for purposes outside their business by implying they were a car insurance provider and didn’t make their commercial intent clear.
-
Freedom Debt Ltd
Two paid-for Google search listings and two websites for an accident claims management company falsely implied that they were acting for purposes outside their business by implying they were a car insurance provider and didn’t make their commercial intent clear.
-
Person(s) unknown
A paid-for Google search ad and a website landing page for an accident management company falsely implied that they were acting for purposes outside their business by implying they were a car insurance provider and didn’t make their commercial intent clear.
-
Abellio ScotRail Ltd t/a ScotRail
A website for ScotRail misleadingly claimed that they offered the cheapest ticket prices.
-
Cult Wines Ltd
A website page for a wine investment company made misleading claims about investment returns. The ad also failed to make clear that wine investment was unregulated, that the value of investments was variable and that examples of past performance...
-
GA Trains Limited t/a Greater Anglia
A website page for Greater Anglia misleadingly claimed that they offered the cheapest ticket prices.
-
Howserv Ltd t/a Staysure Travel
A TV ad for a travel insurance company misleadingly claimed that there was no age limit to their service.
-
My Train Ticket Limited t/a mytrainticket.co.uk
A website page for MyTrainTicket misleadingly claimed that they offered the cheapest ticket prices.
-
OTTY Sleep Ltd
A website page for a mattress company made misleading savings claims.
-
Domestika Inc
A paid-for Facebook post for an online course provider misleadingly gave the impression that an offer was a one-off purchase when it was only available when signing up to a free trial of a subscription.
-
Storage Giant Ltd
Two web pages and an email for a self-storage company made best price guaranteed claims without evidence to support them. They also failed to make sure that quoted prices reflected the total cost people would pay and didn’t make clear when prices were promotional or subject to significant...
-
Select Specs Ltd
A TV and YouTube ad for a glasses retailer made misleading and unverifiable price comparisons with competitor products. The ads also made misleading pricing claims, including by failing to make minimum order requirements and non-optional delivery charges sufficiently clear.
-
Alibaba.com Singapore E-commerce Private Ltd t/a AliExpress
An email and paid-for Google search ad for AliExpress made misleading price statements.
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 (30)