-
Lloyds Bank plc t/a Lloyds Banking Group (LBG)
A national press ad for Lloyds Bank misleadingly implied that they had made donations to social housing projects and omitted significant information that put these claims into context.
-
Hollywoodbets International UK Ltd t/a Hollywoodbets
A banner ad for Hollywood bets seen on the Virtual Football League website was inappropriately targeted to under-18s.
-
Viva!
A cinema ad for the vegan charity Viva!, featuring scenes of a human baby being taken from its mother and equating that with dairy calves being separated from their mothers, was irresponsible, distressing and likely to cause serious and widespread offence, particularly for viewers with experience of child los...
-
Monzo Bank Ltd
A TV ad for Monzo and ITV Sport was obviously recognisable as an ad.
-
Neilson Financial Services Ltd t/a British Seniors
A TV ad didn't show an infant in an unsafe sleep position.
-
Turner Lewis Ltd
A TikTok post and a website misled people about the nature of their business, omitted material information, took advantage of people's inexperience and credulity and failed to be upfront about significant qualifications.
-
Rosenthal Capital Ltd t/a ULEZProsperity
A website made misleading and unsubstantiated investment returns claims and promoted a financial product in a way that couldn't be easily understood.
-
FX Compared Ltd t/a FXcompared
A website made misleading savings claims and implied that the international money transfer providers they recommended were the top providers compared to all other providers when they only included providers from a limited sector of the market. It also failed to make clear that a result listing was an ad.
-
Belle Baby Ltd
A website, which featured a product listing for a swimsuit, included an image of a child portrayed in a sexual way.
-
Shenzhenshi Senyi Dianzi Shangwu Youxiangongsi t/a Plum-Marketing
An Amazon product listing was socially irresponsible as it condoned an unsafe practice and featured very young children playing with a toy that was likely to cause them physical harm.
-
Intelligent Lending Ltd t/a Ocean Finance
A paid-for Meta ad and display ad irresponsibly encouraged consumers to spend regularly on non-essential purchases using a credit card.
-
Connect UK Sales Ltd
A paid-for Facebook ad and website landing page didn’t make clear that the value of investments was variable and failed to provide evidence to substantiate investment claims and price comparisons.
-
Family Vision Ltd
A paid-for Facebook ad irresponsibly encouraged the use of credit agreements to fund Christmas spending.
-
Land Profits EDU Ltd t/a Land Profits
Two paid-for Facebook posts and a website didn’t make clear that the value of investments was variable and that examples of past performance weren’t necessarily a guide to the future and also failed to substantiate objective claims.
-
Luxury Lodge Estates Company Ltd t/a Luxury Lodges
A magazine ad didn’t make clear that the value of investments was variable, and that examples of past performance weren’t necessarily a guide to the future. It also failed to make the nature of a guarantee clear and didn’t include non-optional fees.
-
SteadyPay Ltd
A paid-for Meta ad irresponsibly encouraged people to borrow money for the Black Friday sales and to spend more than they could afford.
-
Zimran Ltd t/a Prosperi Academy
A paid-for YouTube ad for an app offering financial investment training courses didn't make clear that the value of investments was variable and irresponsibly took advantage of people's lack of experience by implying that investment was straightforward and that large returns could be made with minimal time and ...
-
Wahed Invest Ltd
Six posters which appeared on the TfL network caused serious offence by featuring images of burning US dollar and Euro banknotes.
-
get_0ut_0f_debt Ltd
A video on the get_0ut_0f_debt TikTok account was irresponsible and caused serious offense and unjustified distress.
-
Aurum & Argenti Ltd t/a Bullion Club, bullionclub.co.uk
A paid-for Google ad failed to make clear that gold investment was unregulated, that the value of investments was variable and that examples of past performance weren’t necessarily a guide to the future.
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)