-
John Lewis plc
A paid-for Facebook ad and an online display ad for John Lewis made misleading savings claims.
-
Perrin Et Fils SAS t/a La Vieille Ferme
A paid-for TikTok ad for a wine company irresponsibly implied that alcohol had therapeutic qualities, portrayed alcohol as being capable of changing your mood and a source of nourishment and made health claims. The ad was also socially irresponsible by encouraging excessive drinking.
-
VAM Apps Co t/a The Coach
A paid-for YouTube ad for a men’s health app was likely to cause serious and widespread offence.
-
Linjer Ltd
Two paid-for Google ads for a jewellery retailer didn’t make clear that their diamonds were synthetic.
-
Novita Diamonds Ltd t/a Novita Diamonds
Two paid-for Meta ads for a jewellery retailer didn’t make clear that their diamonds were synthetic.
-
Bestway Retail Ltd t/a Bargain Booze
A paid-for Facebook ad for an alcohol retailer irresponsibly implied that alcohol could overcome loneliness.
-
Medilife Clinic Enfield
A paid-for Instagram ad for a health clinic made claims that their treatments could alleviate or treat the traits of autism without suitable evidence to support these claims. The ad also discouraged essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought.
-
The Professional Development Consortium Ltd t/a CPD Standards Office
Two paid-for Meta ads for a training accreditation company made misleading comparative claims with identifiable competitors which weren’t supported by evidence and couldn’t be verified by consumers.
-
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...
-
Gismart Ltd t/a Dancebit
A paid-for Facebook ad for a dance workout app misleadingly stated that their service was free.
-
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.
-
Birling Shore Ltd t/a ShroomIQ
A website and paid-for Facebook ad for a children’s supplement brand stated that a food supplement could prevent, treat or cure the symptoms of ADHD, Tourette Syndrome, anxiety and depression. The ads also made medicinal claims for unauthorised products, made unauthorised health claims&nb...
-
Dollead Technology Ltd
A paid-for search ad for a vacuum review website failed to make their commercial intent clear and falsely implied they were acting for purposes outside their trade by presenting websites used for marketing purposes as independent review sites.
-
Sinointeractive Digital Marketing Co Ltd t/a trustedbuyerguide.org
A paid-for search ad for a vacuum review website failed to make their commercial intent clear and falsely implied they were acting for purposes outside their trade by presenting websites used for marketing purposes as independent review sites.
-
Xinyu International Trading Ltd t/a consumertestreports.org
A paid-for search ad for a vacuum review website failed to make their commercial intent clear and falsely implied they were acting for purposes outside their trade by presenting websites used for marketing purposes as independent review sites.
-
Juniper Technologies UK Ltd t/a Juniper
A paid-for Facebook ad for an online pharmacy was socially irresponsible and likely to cause harm or serious and widespread offence by exploiting new mothers’ insecurities about body image and perpetuating pressure for them to conform to body image stereotypes. They also promoted prescription-only medicines to th...
-
Juniper Technologies UK Ltd t/a Juniper
Two paid-for Instagram ads for an online pharmacy promoted prescription-only medicines to the public, which is against the law and our rules. They also created an undue sense of urgency for members of the public who are considering medicated weight-loss programmes.
-
Skill on Net Ltd t/a Gecko Play
A paid-for Instagram ad for a gambling website portrayed, condoned and encouraged gambling behaviour that was socially irresponsible and could lead to financial, social or emotional harm.
-
Persons unknown t/a Cloud Nine
A paid-for Facebook ad for a clothing company made medical claims for a product that didn’t have the relevant compliance labels and wasn’t registered with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. The ad also discouraged essential treatment for a condition for which medical supervision should...
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 (149)