-
PEL Consultancy Services Ltd t/a PEL Investigations
We banned an ad for a private investigation agency for having unsubstantiated claims.
-
Lipstick Gangster Ltd t/a The Lipstick Gangster
A post on a beauty clinic’s Facebook page promoted an unlicensed medicinal product and made misleading and unsubstantiated claims about the efficacy of a treatment.
-
Serenity Technologies Ltd t/a Neocremations
A website ad for a cremation service was banned for denigrating the company’s competitors.
-
Grapevine Europe Ltd
A TV ad for a car buying comparison site misled consumers about what personal information was needed to obtain valuations from their website.
-
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.
-
Zzoomm plc
A direct mailing misleadingly stated the savings someone could make with their broadband service.
-
UK Insurance Ltd t/a Direct Line
A TV and radio ads for Direct Line insurance were banned over claims about competitive pricing
-
Tesco Stores Ltd t/a Tesco
An outdoor digital poster comparing the Tesco Clubcard and Sainsbury’s Nectar loyalty card schemes wasn’t misleading.
-
Sky UK Ltd
The website for Sky Business broadband made savings claims that were not available to all consumers and misleading price comparisons.
-
Uber BV
REPUBLISHED RULING: A paid-for ad and a national press ad for Uber made misleading and unsubstantiated claims about the staff benefits the company provided.
-
Iceland Foods Ltd t/a Iceland
A national press ad for a supermarket did not make a misleading price comparison.
-
Secret Escapes Ltd
A website made misleading price comparisons and failed to make the basis of price comparisons clear.
-
Volkswagen Group United Kingdom Ltd t/a Audi
A Video on Demand ad for an electric car featured misleading claims about charging time and mileage.
-
Procter & Gamble UK t/a Always
A TV ad for Always Discreet incontinence pads did not compare the product to the most appropriate version from the leading brand, and contained on-screen text whose placement misleading implied that 95% of women surveyed preferred the Always Discreet pad to the maxi pad from the leading brand.
-
The Secret Diamond Academy
Two posts on the Facebook page of a beauty salon advertised training courses for sclerotherapy, without making clear the nature, requirements, qualifications and professional registration details of the course.
-
Oneade
We banned an ad for using filters to exaggerate a beauty product’s efficacy.
-
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.
-
Outsourceful Ltd t/a Outsourceful
An email and website for a recruitment agency perpetuated harmful racial stereotypes and were likely to cause serious offence.
-
CurrencyWave Ltd t/a CurrencyWave
A website for a foreign currency payments service misleadingly implied they conducted foreign exchange payments and were FCA authorised, and also used inaccurate cost comparison information.
-
Emma Matratzen GmbH t/a Emma Mattress
Two paid-for YouTube ads failed to make it clear that a mattress comparison site was owned by a mattress company.
-
Live-In Care Direct
-
TalkTalk Telecom Ltd
-
British Telecommunications plc
-
Trading 212 Ltd
-
Native Snacks Ltd
-
Wren Kitchens Ltd
-
Vodafone Ltd
-
Nutricia Ltd t/a Aptamil
-
B&Q plc
-
Proper Leads Ltd
-
Smile White Holdings Ltd t/a Smile White
-
4MM Ltd
-
The CPD Register Ltd
-
The Media Den Ltd
-
Neil Taylor Insolvency Ltd
-
GoDaddy Operating Company LLC
-
Direct Ferries Ltd t/a Direct Ferries
Topic: Holidays, travel and motoring
-
Conservatory Insulations Northwest Ltd
-
The Chord Company Ltd
-
Insight Retail Group Ltd