Rulings (44)
  • Go Night Night (unconfirmed)

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 30 October 2024

    A website for a sleep consultancy company misleadingly featured the logo of a professional standards body that it wasn't registered with.  

  • Ella Kate Reeves

    • Upheld
    • Social media (own site)
    • 27 July 2022

    Two Facebook pages for Ella Reeves misleadingly claimed she was accredited to the British Association of Counselling and Psychotherapy.

  • Emma Louise Taylor t/a Harley St Therapy

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content)
    • 08 September 2021

    A website ad for a person claiming to be a member of the British Association of Counselling and Psychotherapy was banned for being misleading.

  • Borthwick Group (Energy) Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 15 November 2023

    A paid-for Facebook ad from a credit broker misleadingly suggested that it had been endorsed or approved by the BBC.

  • UK Bi-Fold Door Factory Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content)
    • 05 July 2023

    A website for a window and door fitting company misleadingly claimed to have an official partnership with Schüco and Cortizo.

  • Impact Energy Ltd

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

    Two paid-for Meta ads offering a home efficiency scheme grant misleadingly implied that the company was endorsed by or associated with the UK Government.

  • Simmer Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Internet (display)
    • 17 July 2024

    A Facebook post and paid-for TikTok ad misleadingly implied that an endorsement was genuine and related to their product. 

  • TMS Legal Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 15 November 2023

    Two paid-for TikTok posts were misleading, as they implied testimonials featured were from genuine customers of Vanquis Bank and Moneybarn No.1.

  • One Source Digital Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 16 August 2023

    A paid-for Facebook ad for an ECO funding and government grant scheme misleadingly implied that the company was endorsed by or affiliated with the UK Government.

  • Oneade

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

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

  • Swann Communications (Europe) Ltd t/a Swann

    • Not upheld
    • Internet (on own site), Website (own site)
    • 29 April 2020

    Reviews on a website for a surveillance product company were genuine and unlikely to mislead.

  • Ignite Sustainable Energy Ltd t/a ignitese.co.uk

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

    Two paid-for Facebook and Instagram ads offering a home efficiency scheme grant misleadingly implied that the company was endorsed by or associated with the UK Government.

  • The BLAC Awards (UK) C.I.C t/a The BLAC Awards

    • Upheld
    • Social media (own site)
    • 02 October 2024

    Four Facebook posts on The BLAC Awards page, and a website for The BLAC Awards misleadingly implied that they had an official partnership with the Royal Air Force.

  • Wild Cosmetics Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Internet
    • 24 July 2024

    A pre-roll YouTube ad for Wild deodorant misleadingly implied that there was a link between competing deodorant products and breast cancer.

  • Brooksdale Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 31 January 2024

    Three paid-for Facebook ads for PPI tax rebates misleadingly implied they were from HMRC or an official government service, and irresponsibly took advantage of people’s concerns about the cost of living crisis.

  • Reclaim My PPI Tax Ltd t/a Reclaim My PPI Tax

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 31 January 2024

    Three paid-for Facebook ads for PPI tax rebates misleadingly implied they were from HMRC or an official government service, and irresponsibly took advantage of people’s concerns about the cost of living crisis.

  • Weybury Hildreth Ltd t/a Purflo

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content)
    • 20 July 2022

    A website ad misleadingly claimed that a baby bed was certified for safe sleeping, and claimed that the product met specific British Safety Standards which were not fully applicable for the product.

  • Action Rehab

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 18 December 2024

    A website for a rehab clinic referral company falsely implied that they were acting for purposes outside their business, that they owned clinics and that they had been approved by a public body. It also failed to make clear that they received a commission for their service.

  • Serenity Rehabilitation Ltd t/a Serenity Addiction Centres

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 18 December 2024

    A website for a rehab clinic referral company falsely implied that they were acting for purposes outside their business, that they provided treatment directly at clinics they operated and that they had been approved by a public body and also failed to make clear that they received a commission for their service.

  • Alchemy Bros Ltd t/a Energy Grant Access

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

    A paid-for Meta ad offering a home efficiency scheme grant misleadingly implied that the company was endorsed by or associated with the Scottish Government, falsely implied that they were acting for purposes outside their trade and didn’t make their commercial intent clear.

Informally resolved (2)
  • World of Fashion (Manchester) Ltd

    • 17 February 2021
    • Number of complaints: 1

  • Blue Ocean Ecom Ltd t/a VitalTrack

    • 18 December 2024
    • Number of complaints: 0