-
Artscapy Ltd
A paid-for Google ad for an art investment company failed to make clear that art investment was unregulated and that the value of investments was variable.
-
Betway Ltd
A paid-for Facebook ad for Betway featured Sir Lewis Hamilton, a person who had strong appeal to under-18s.
-
HER Galleries Ltd t/a Her Fine Art
A paid-for Facebook ad for an art investment company failed to make clear that art investment was unregulated, that the value of investments was variable and that examples of past performance weren’t necessarily a guide to the future.
-
Hartco Consultancy
Two paid-for Facebook ads for an art investment company failed to make clear that art investment was unregulated, that the value of investments was variable and that examples of past performance weren’t necessarily a guide to the future. The ads also featured examples of past performance that were unrepresentativ...
-
Lacoste E-commerce t/a Lacoste
A paid-for Google ad for Lacoste made misleading environmental claims.
-
Nike Retail BV
A paid-for Google ad for Nike made misleading environmental claims.
-
Supergroup Internet Ltd
A paid-for Google ad for Superdry made misleading environmental claims.
-
Woodbury House Ltd
Two paid-for Google search ads for an art investment company failed to make clear that art investment was unregulated and that the value of investments was variable.
-
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.
-
Good Energy Ltd
A paid-for Meta ad for Good Energy made unsubstantiated savings claims about greener home installation and failed to include all material information.
-
HydroChill
A paid-for YouTube ad for a mini-cooler made exaggerated and unsubstantiated claims about their product’s cooling abilities, cost effectiveness and that their product was a viable and economical alternative to air conditioning.
-
Trip.com Travel Singapore Pte. Ltd t/a Trip.com
Two paid-for Meta ads for Trip.com for a promotion caused unnecessary disappointment and didn’t provide people with sufficient information to make an informed decision on whether or not to participate. One of the ads also misleadingly implied that an offer was available during a part...
-
UAB CommerceCore t/a NuraBreeze
A paid-for YouTube ad for a mini-cooler made exaggerated and unsubstantiated claims about their product’s cooling abilities, cost effectiveness and that their product was a viable and economical alternative to air conditioning.
-
UAB Rara Digital t/a Airabreeze
Two paid-for online display ads and a paid-for YouTube ad for a mini-cooler made exaggerated and unsubstantiated claims about their product’s cooling abilities, cost effectiveness and that their product was a viable and economical alternative to air conditioning.
-
Booking.com BV
A paid-for search ad for Booking.com made misleading claims about the price of hotel rooms.
-
Hilton Worldwide Ltd
Two paid-for search ads for Hilton made misleading claims about the price of hotel rooms.
-
Travelodge Hotels Ltd
Two paid-for search ads for Travelodge made misleading claims about the price of hotel rooms.
-
Banquist Ltd t/a Winedrops
Two emails and a paid-for Instagram ad for an online wine retailer made misleading and unsubstantiated claims about the origin of their wine. They also failed to make clear the basis of the price comparisons and the significant conditions of the promotion.
-
Beautaholics Ltd
A paid-for Meta ad and a website page for a hair and skincare retailer which featured an LED facemask made medicinal claims for a product that was not registered with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and didn't have the applicable conformity marking.
-
Cleriva t/a NovaFlow
Two paid-for Facebook ads for a sinus clearing device made medical claims for a product that did not have the applicable conformity marking and was not registered with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
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 (126)