Rulings

PEL Consultancy Services Ltd t/a PEL Investigations

• Upheld
• Search (paid)
• 11 May 2022

We banned an ad for a private investigation agency for having unsubstantiated claims.

Lipstick Gangster Ltd t/a The Lipstick Gangster

• Upheld
• Social media (own site)
• 12 July 2023

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.

Funeralbooker Ltd t/a Beyond

• Upheld
• Internet (on own site)
• 08 January 2020

Claims on a funeral comparison website were misleading.

Parcel2Go.com Ltd

• Upheld
• Internet (display)
• 20 February 2019

A website for the parcel delivery comparison website, www.parcel2go.com, seen on 28 November 2018

Aldi Stores Ltd t/a Aldi

• Upheld
• Press general
• 17 July 2019

"Save 45%". Small text at the bottom of the page stated "Based on a comparison of Aldi … for Tesco. Aldi prices and packaging correct as of 07/12/18. Subject to availability. For full product comparison details see [URL]".

skewed the price comparison in Aldi's favour, and that the ad did not make sufficiently clear that … product, challenged whether the price comparison was misleading. Aldi Stores Ltd said that own-brand … versus brand comparisons, and multi-product comparisons, were inherently permissible. The inclusion

BVG Group

• Upheld
• Brochure
• 03 July 2019

, specification and design - though each product will clearly not be identical. Exact comparisons can … be found on each product on our website. Comparison prices correct as of 3rd July 2018”.

The complainant challenged whether the comparisons between the advertiser’s and the … products on the high street. However, to ensure that comparisons were fair they said that they updated … their price comparisons every month to ensure that they remained current and that they made it clear

Serenity Technologies Ltd t/a Neocremations

• Upheld
• Internet (on own site)
• 05 August 2020

A website ad for a cremation service was banned for denigrating the company’s competitors.

Grapevine Europe Ltd

• Upheld
• Television
• 20 May 2020

A TV ad for a car buying comparison site misled consumers about what personal information was needed to obtain valuations from their website.

UK Insurance Ltd t/a Direct Line

• Upheld in part
• Television
• 21 July 2021

A TV and radio ads for Direct Line insurance were banned over claims about competitive pricing

Tesco Stores Ltd t/a Tesco

• Upheld in part
• National press, Television
• 18 September 2019

TV and press basket comparison ads for Tesco were found to be misleading.

Sky UK Ltd

• Upheld in part
• Internet (website content)
• 26 July 2023

The website for Sky Business broadband made savings claims that were not available to all consumers and misleading price comparisons. 

Uber BV

• Upheld
• App (paid ad), National newspaper (ad feature)
• 05 April 2023

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

• Not upheld
• National press
• 29 April 2020

A national press ad for a supermarket did not make a misleading price comparison.

Parcel2Go.com Ltd t/a Parcel2go

• Upheld in part
• Internet (on own site), Email
• 01 April 2020

A website and an email for a parcel delivery comparison website omitted information about parcel restrictions and misled consumers about their ratings.

Procter & Gamble UK t/a Always

• Upheld
• Television
• 29 November 2023

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

• Upheld
• Social media (own site)
• 26 April 2023

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

• Upheld
• Social media (own site)
• 04 May 2022

We banned an ad for using filters to exaggerate a beauty product’s efficacy.

Parcel2Go.com Ltd t/a Parcel2go

• Upheld
• Internet (on own site)
• 19 February 2020

A 'Next Day+ Delivery' claim on a parcel delivery comparison website was banned for being misleading.

Emma Matratzen GmbH t/a Emma Mattress

• Upheld
• Internet (website content)
• 08 November 2023

Two paid-for YouTube ads failed to make it clear that a mattress comparison site was owned by a mattress company.

The Business Catalyst Ltd

• Upheld
• Website (own site)
• 14 June 2023

A blog post on the website for a business software provider made claims about the functionality of another software without holding adequate substantiation for those claims.