Rulings (24)
  • Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities

    • Upheld
    • Local or regional newspaper (ad feature), National newspaper (ad feature)
    • 12 October 2022

    Seven newspaper advertorials for the Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities were not obviously identifiable as ads.

  • Nutritional Sciences Ltd t/a Physical Nutrition

    • Upheld
    • 19 June 2024

    Nutritional Sciences Ltd: An ad made unauthorised health claims, implied that a food supplement could prevent, treat or cure human disease and made misleading claims regarding an alleged testimonial from a doctor.    

  • Viagogo AG

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content)
    • 10 January 2024

    Two advertorials misleadingly omitted material information about the validity of tickets bought through viagogo.

  • 888 UK Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Website (ad feature)
    • 10 November 2021

    A website advertorial for a slot machine app was banned for misleadingly implying that offers were time-limited and for making other misleading claims.

  • Asav Consultancy Ltd t/a Vibes CBD

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content)
    • 26 October 2022

    Four advertorials for a CBD oil seen on online news outlets, were banned for not being obviously identifiable as ads, making medicinal claims for unlicensed products and stating the product could prevent, treat or cure human disease.

  • Enigmaa Ltd t/a Blessed CBD

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content)
    • 26 October 2022

    Four advertorials for a CBD oil seen on online news outlets, were banned for not being obviously identifiable as ads, making medicinal claims for unlicensed products and stating the product could prevent, treat or cure human disease.

  • Health Bridge Ltd t/a Zava

    • Upheld
    • Website (ad feature)
    • 18 February 2026

    An advertorial promoting medicated weight-loss seen on the Mumsnet website didn’t make it clear it was an ad, used healthcare professionals to endorse a medicine and promoted prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.

  • Marketing VF Ltd t/a The Eco Experts

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 18 December 2024

    A paid-for Facebook ad for a laser eye surgery referral company falsely implied they were acting for purposes outside their business and that they directly provided laser eye surgery when this wasn’t the case. The ad also failed to make clear that they receive a commission for their service and misleadingly exagg...

  • Independent British Vape Trade Association t/a IBVTA

    • Upheld
    • National newspaper (ad feature)
    • 01 May 2024

    A newspaper advertorial indirectly promoted unlicenced e-cigarettes.

  • Laybuy Holdings (UK) Ltd

    • Upheld in part
    • 06 April 2022

    Three ads for Laybuy, a ‘buy now pay later’ credit provider, were banned for not making it clear that the service was a form of credit.

  • Prism Marketing Group Ltd t/a Green Energy Voucher

    • Upheld in part
    • Internet (website content), Social media (own site)
    • 15 November 2023

    A Facebook post and a landing page for a home improvement saving company exaggerated the efficacy of spray foam insulation and misleadingly implied consumers could get a discount on its installation.

  • Pelham Health Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content)
    • 09 November 2022

    A paid-for ad on a browser news feed and a landing page on a money saving website did not make clear their commercial intent to generate leads, misled consumers by suggesting their products were in high demand, made misleading price statements and unsubstantiated claims about the NHS.

  • Open Media Group Ltd t/a Peace of Mind Funerals

    • Upheld
    • Website (ad feature)
    • 03 November 2021

    A banner ad around funeral costs was banned for misleading claims, and failing to make clear commercial intent.

  • Xinyu International Trading Ltd t/a consumertestreports.org

    • Upheld
    • Search (paid)
    • 22 April 2026

    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.

  • Universal Music Operations Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
    • 19 April 2023

    A TikTok post on Tasha Ghouri’s account broke the rules as it was not obviously identifiable as an ad.

  • Primark Stores Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
    • 27 October 2021

    An Instagram post by influencer Gabby Allen promoting Primark products was banned for not being obviously identifiable as an ad.

  • Peak Performance Advertising LLC t/a ExpertsInMoney.Co

    • Upheld
    • Internet (display)
    • 01 February 2023

    A display ad for Experts in Money was misleading because it claimed or implied that they were acting for purposes outside their business and omitted material information.

  • Capgroup Inc Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 08 July 2026

    A website for a whiskey cask and gold coin investment company made misleading claims about investment returns. As well as misleadingly presenting an incorrect Trustpilot score. The ad also failed to make clear that cask whiskey investments were unregulated and that examples of past performance weren’t necessarily...

  • Vodafone Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
    • 08 February 2023

    An Instagram post and an Instagram story on Alexandra Felstead’s account were not obviously identifiable as ads.

  • MOS Media Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content), Social media (own site)
    • 17 August 2022

    A tweet and a listing on the company’s website for vitamin B12 injections broke the rules by promoting prescription-only medicines to the public and (the tweet) for not being obviously identifiable as an ad.

Informally resolved (13)
  • JSHealth Vitamins UK Ltd

    • 01 December 2021
    • Number of complaints: 1

  • Sharks Media Ltd

    • 07 December 2022
    • Number of complaints: 1

  • Neighbour Net Ltd t/a Chiswickw4.com

    • 09 February 2022
    • Number of complaints: 0

  • Midshires Care Ltd

    • 05 February 2025
    • Number of complaints: 1

  • ASDA Stores Ltd

    • 07 February 2024
    • Number of complaints: 1

  • Firmus Energy (Supply) Ltd

    • 29 September 2021
    • Number of complaints: 1

  • Prism Marketing Group Ltd

    • 06 March 2024
    • Number of complaints: 1

  • Enigmaa Ltd

    • 30 March 2022
    • Number of complaints: 1

  • SharkNinja Operating LLC t/a SharkNinja Operating LLC, Shark Vacuum, Ninja, NutriNinja SharkNinja Operating LLC

    • 02 October 2024
    • Number of complaints: 1

  • Enigmaa Ltd

    • 18 January 2023
    • Number of complaints: 1

  • Flutter Entertainment plc

    • 01 December 2021
    • Number of complaints: 1

  • Holiday Swap Group Ltd

    • 13 September 2023
    • Number of complaints: 1

  • Reach plc t/a Daily Mirror

    • 09 April 2025
    • Number of complaints: 1