Rulings (118)
  • Unilever UK Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 13 January 2021

    A paid-for Facebook post by Boots was banned for implying that a lotion product could protect babies’ skin microbiome without holding sufficient evidence to demonstrate that this was the case.

  • Flights & Holidays UK Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Internet (on own site)
    • 06 January 2021

    A website ad for an online travel agency was banned for making a misleading price claim for a flight from London to Orlando.

  • In The Style Fashion Ltd t/a In the Style

    • Upheld
    • Internet
    • 06 January 2021

    A website and Instagram post by an online fashion retailer were banned for implying that all their products were included in an offer when this was not actually the case.

  • Manuka Doctor (UK) Ltd

    • Upheld
    • National newspaper (ad feature)
    • 06 January 2021

    A newspaper ad for a brand of honey was banned for implying that it could be used as a treatment for coughs and for implying that its “anti-microbial” properties could treat diseases.

  • L(A)B Life and Beauty

    • Upheld
    • Internet (on own site)
    • 16 December 2020

    A website post and three Facebook posts by a skin and healthcare company were banned for claiming its belt product could help consumers lose weight without substantial evidence to support the claim.

  • Lidl Great Britain Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Internet (on own site), National press, Leaflet
    • 16 December 2020

    Two leaflets, a website, and two newspaper ads for Lidl products were banned for quoting unsubstantiated RRP claims.

  • Easylife Group Ltd t/a Easylife Group, Positive Health

    • Upheld
    • 02 December 2020

    A brochure ad for a skin product was banned for implying that it was effective at removing the appearance of wrinkles and removing skin tags, without adequate evidence.

  • Geraint Christopher t/a Hemp in Avalon

    • Upheld
    • 02 December 2020

    A newspaper and Instagram post by a hemp shop were banned for inciting people to break the law by discouraging them from wearing face coverings in shops.

  • KS Competitions Ltd

    • Upheld
    • 02 December 2020

    A website ad promoting a competition to win hair products breached the CAP Code for not explaining the free entry route and for stating that its closing date would be extended if all tickets were not sold.

  • SCA Investments Ltd t/a Gousto

    • Upheld
    • 02 December 2020

    A website ad for the meal subscription service Gousto misleadingly stated that their packaging was 100% plastic free and misleadingly stated that it was 100% recyclable.

  • Health Solutions Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Leaflet
    • 25 November 2020

    A leaflet for a healthcare service was banned for implying that their food supplements could prevent, treat or cure human disease.

  • Licensed Taxi Drivers Association Ltd t/a LTDA

    • Upheld
    • Radio
    • 25 November 2020

    A radio ad promoting London black cab services exaggerated the extent to which features of the taxis could reduce the spread of COVID-19.

  • Rightio Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Internet (sponsored search)
    • 25 November 2020

    A paid-for Google Ad for a plumbing service misleadingly stated that a call-out charge did not apply for diagnostic work carried out by engineers.

  • Person(s) unknown t/a TBM Enterprises and Thebettingman

    • Upheld
    • Internet (social networking)
    • 18 November 2020

    An Instagram story by Sam Gowland was not obviously identifiable as an ad and broke the rules on social responsibility for suggesting using betting tipsters was a way of achieving financial security.

  • TUI UK Ltd

    • Not upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 18 November 2020

    Claims on a travel and tourism company website for hotel rooms were not misleading.

  • Easylife Group Ltd t/a Easylife Group, Positive Health

    • Upheld
    • Newspaper
    • 11 November 2020

    An ad in a national newspaper made misleading and unsubstantiated claims that a reusable face mask would protect the wearer from COVID-19 and that copper-infused fibres in the mask would kill particles of COVID-19.

  • Jemella Ltd t/a GHD

    • Upheld
    • Internet (social networking)
    • 04 November 2020

    A TikTok post by Emily Canham about a GHD branded hairdryer was banned for not being obviously identifiable as an ad.

  • Town Force Ltd

    • Upheld in part
    • Internet (website content)
    • 04 November 2020

    A website ad for a plumbing service was banned for misleadingly stating that they did not charge a call-out fee when it was their policy to do so.

  • Sky UK Ltd

    • Not upheld
    • Television
    • 28 October 2020

    A website and TV ad for Sky was not found to be misleading.

  • 360 Health Ltd t/a London Vaccination Centre

    • Upheld
    • Email
    • 14 October 2020

    A direct email from a vaccination clinic was banned for implying that a positive COVID-19 antibody test would show that people were immune to the disease.