-
Lotus Leisure Ltd t/a DialAFlight
A paid-for Meta ad for a travel agent didn’t make the basis for their environmental claims clear.
-
We Love Holidays Ltd t/a loveholidays
Two paid-for Google ads for loveholidays didn’t make the basis for their environmental claims clear.
-
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.
-
Nike Retail BV
A paid-for Google ad for Nike made misleading environmental claims.
-
TravelCircle Ltd t/a Cruise Circle
A webpage advertising cruise operator failed to make the basis of environmental and comparative claims clear and didn’t substantiate the environmental claims made in relation to the full life cycle of a cruise.
-
Thomas Cook Tourism (UK) Company Ltd t/a Thomas Cook
A paid- for Google ad for Thomas Cook didn’t make the basis for their environmental claims clear.
-
Adidas UK Ltd t/a adidas
A paid-for Google ad for adidas made misleading environmental claims.
-
Uniqlo (UK) Ltd t/a UNIQLO
A paid- for Google ad for UNIQLO made misleading environmental claims.
-
Lacoste E-commerce t/a Lacoste
A paid-for Google ad for Lacoste made misleading environmental claims.
-
Vacaciones eDreams, S.L. t/a eDreams
Two paid-for online display ads made unsubstantiated environmental claims.
-
Charles Tyrwhitt Shirts Ltd
of environmental claims must be clear and stated that unqualified claims could mislead if material … breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 3.1, 3.3 (Misleading advertising) and 11.1 (Environmental claims). The … ensure that the basis of future environmental claims were clear.
-
JC Atkinson & Son Ltd
An ad on the company’s website misleadingly implied that their MDF coffins were more eco-friendly than other options, without sufficient evidence.
-
Calvin Klein Europe BV t/a Calvin Klein
A paid-for Google ad for Calvin Klein made misleading environmental claims.
-
Barrhead Travel Service Ltd t/a Barrhead Travel
A paid-for Google ad for a travel agency gave a misleading impression of the advertised cruises’ environmental impact by failing to make the basis of environmental claims clear and not holding robust substantiation to support them.
-
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.
-
Here We Flo Ltd t/a Flo
Three Instagram posts for a period product company made misleading environmental claims, including by failing to make the basis of environmental claims clear.
-
Kit & Kin Ltd
A website for a baby product company failed to make the basis of environmental and comparative claims clear, didn’t have suitable evidence to support these claims and gave a misleading impression of their products’ environmental impact.
-
Supergroup Internet Ltd
A paid-for Google ad for Superdry made misleading environmental claims.
-
Unilever UK Ltd
A TV ad for Persil washing liquid broke the rules by making misleading and unsubstantiated claims that the product was “kinder to our planet”.
-
BrewDog plc
definition of carbon negative. Upheld The CAP Code required that the basis of environmental claims must … environmental claim clear because it did not provide information in the ad on the basis for the “carbon … (Environmental claims). The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Brewdog Plc to ensure the basis of environmental claims was clear in future ads.
-
British Airways plc
-
Vauxhall Motors Ltd
-
Polestar Automotive UK Ltd
-
Bentley Motors Ltd
-
Omni Pet Ltd
-
IEdiSA SA
-
Brand Developers Ltd
-
Opodo Ltd t/a Opodo
-
TUI UK Ltd
-
Fuse Energy Supply Ltd
-
The Offshore Energies Association Ltd t/a OEUK
-
Nissan Motor (GB) Ltd
-
Anchor Hanover Group
-
Quooker UK Ltd
Media: Newspaper
-
easyJet Airline Co Ltd
-
Prestige Gifting Ltd
-
BrewDog plc
-
Viking Energy Partnership