-
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...
-
CityFibre Holdings Ltd
A direct mailing wasn't misleading.
-
Vodafone Ltd
Claims on Vodafone’s website which contained references to reliability and coverage failed to objectively compare one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative features.
-
Belle Baby Ltd
A website, which featured a product listing for a swimsuit, included an image of a child portrayed in a sexual way.
-
Hutchison 3G UK Ltd t/a Three Mobile
A national press ad, two paid-for Meta ads and a website for Three Mobile didn’t make misleading ‘best value’ claims.
-
EE Ltd t/a EE
A TV, radio, paid-for social media and digital poster ad for EE made unsubstantiated claims about the performance and capabilities of a Wi-Fi router.
-
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.
-
DeVosVoorzieningen BVBA t/a Qinux TitanPG
A pre-roll YouTube ad made unsubstantiated claims about the features and popularity of a smart watch.
-
British Telecommunications plc t/a BT
A webpage on the BT website didn’t make clear that their broadband contracts would be subject to mid-contract price increases.
-
EE Ltd t/a EE
A webpage on the EE website didn’t make clear that their broadband contracts would be subject to mid-contract price increases.
-
Plusnet plc
A webpage on the Plusnet plc website didn’t make clear that their broadband contracts would be subject to mid-contract price increases.
-
TalkTalk Telecom Ltd t/a TalkTalk
A webpage on the TalkTalk website didn’t make clear that their broadband contracts would be subject to mid-contract price increases.
-
Telefonica UK Ltd t/a O2
A webpage on the O2 website didn’t make clear that their broadband contracts would be subject to mid-contract price increase.
-
Virgin Media Ltd
A webpage on the Virgin Media website didn’t make clear that their broadband contracts would be subject to mid-contract price increases.
-
Vodafone Ltd
A TV ad, paid-for X ad and website for Vodafone made unsubstantiated claims that their broadband services provided a nearly identical performance to BT's services, and that millions of BT broadband customers had already switched, or were actively considering switching, to Vodafone.
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 (16)