-
London Luton Airport Ltd t/a Luton Rising
A magazine ad and a poster for Luton Rising did not adequately qualify the claims made in the ad and omitted material information about the environmental impact of London Luton Airport’s expansion.
-
Etihad Airways
A paid-for Google ad gave a misleading impression of the airline’s environmental impact.
-
TIER Operations Ltd
A poster ad for an electric scooter hire company was banned for making misleading environmental claims.
-
Etihad Airways
Two Facebook ads for an airline made misleading environmental claims about the impact of flying.
-
Puressentiel UK Ltd
A newspaper ad for an air spray product misleadingly implied that it could reduce airborne household bacteria.
-
Dalradian Gold Ltd
A newspaper ad for a gold mining construction project was banned for misleadingly implying that materials extracted from the proposed mine would be used in the renewable energy industry.
-
Easigrass (Distribution) Ltd
A Facebook post and website for artificial grass made misleading claims about recyclability, and misleadingly implied the product was eco friendly.
-
Golden Leaves Ltd
An ad on the company’s website misleadingly implied that their MDF coffins were more eco-friendly than other options, without sufficient evidence.
-
Floor Design Ltd t/a Flooring by Nature
A website failed to substantiate environmental claims and didn’t make clear that these claims referred to only part of a carpet, and the actions people would need to take for their carpet to successfully biodegrade.
-
Oatly UK Ltd t/a Oatly
Two TV ads, a paid-for Facebook post, a paid-for Twitter post and two newspaper ads for an oat drink company were banned for making misleading environmental claims.
-
Kinetique Ltd t/a Ethica Diamonds
A website ad for diamonds was banned for not making clear that the products were made of substitute materials and were not laboratory-grown diamonds.
-
Innocent Ltd t/a Innocent
A video on demand ad, a paid-for YouTube and a TV ad for Innocent drinks was banned for exaggerating the total environmental benefit of the products.
-
Hurtigruten UK Ltd t/a HX Hurtigruten Expeditions
A paid-for ad in a digital newspaper for a cruise made misleading and unsubstantiated claims about the environmental impact of the expedition and failed to make the basis of these environmental claims clear.
-
Deutsche Lufthansa AG t/a Lufthansa
A poster for Lufthansa made misleading claims about the airline’s environmental impact.
-
Mazda Motors UK Ltd
A paid-for Meta ad for the Mazda2 Hybrid car gave a misleading impression of the vehicle’s environment impact and made absolute claims that couldn’t be evidenced.
-
Vacaciones eDreams, S.L. t/a eDreams
Two paid-for online display ads made unsubstantiated environmental claims.
-
Alpro (UK) Ltd t/a Alpro
A poster for an almond drink was banned for making misleading environmental claims, in particular, that the product was ‘good for the planet’.
-
Wessex Water Services Ltd
A TV ad for Wessex Water did not adequately qualify the environmental claims made in the ad and omitted material information about the company’s environmental impact.
-
Air France-KLM
A paid-for Google ad gave a misleading impression of the airline’s environmental impact.
-
Deutsche Lufthansa AG t/a Lufthansa
A paid-for Google ad gave a misleading impression of the airline’s environmental impact.
Rulings
Our rulings are published every Wednesday and set out on the public record how, following a formal 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 agree to amend or withdraw their ad without being subject to a formal ruling.
Rulings (87)