Rulings

Our rulings are published every Wednesday and set out on the public record how, following 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, following receipt of a complaint, agreed to amend or withdraw their ad without the need for a formal investigation.

Rulings (5)

Asos.com Ltd
- Upheld
- Email
- 05 May 2021
A marketing communication email from ASOS was banned for implying all their products were included in an offer when this was not the case.
Blood and Medical Services Ltd t/a Vivo Clinic Shop
- Upheld
- Internet (website content)
- 05 May 2021
A website ad for a health clinic was banned for making misleading claims about the speed at which they could provide the results for Covid-19 tests.
Homeopathy UK
- Upheld
- Internet (website content)
- 05 May 2021
A website ad for a homeopathy clinic was banned for discouraging essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought.
Maple Syrup Media Ltd t/a Quidco, Quidco.com
- Upheld
- Internet (website content), Social media (own site)
- 05 May 2021
A website and Facebook ad for a cashback service provider were banned for making misleading claims.
Max Mara Fashion Group Srl
- Upheld
- Magazine (paid ad)
- 05 May 2021
A magazine ad for a clothing retailer was banned for including a model who appeared unhealthily thin.

Informally resolved (0)

Mail order cases (0)

Database cases (0)