Rulings (55)
  • Anthony Grant t/a Resonator.uk

    • Internet (website content), Social media (own site)
    • 09 June 2021

    A website and Facebook ad for an electronic bio-resonance machine was banned for stating that it was an effective alternative to vaccination against COVID-19.

  • John Mills Ltd t/a JML Direct

    • Television
    • 09 June 2021

    A TV ad for a Hurricane Spin Scrubber was banned for suggesting that cleaning the home was a responsibility uniquely associated with women.

  • Tesco Stores Ltd t/a Tesco

    • Newspaper
    • 09 June 2021

    A newspaper ad for Tesco did not make misleading price comparison claims and did not break the CAP Code.

  • Nike (UK) Ltd

    • Television, VOD
    • 02 June 2021

    A TV ad, two VOD ads on All4 and ITV Hub, and a YouTube video for Nike which showed pregnant woman participating in sports were not found to be irresponsible and did not break the BCAP Code.

  • The Positive Birth Company Ltd

    • Internet (website content)
    • 02 June 2021

    A website ad for a hypnobirthing course was banned for claiming to be the world’s most affordable hypnobirthing programme without holding adequate comparative evidence to substantiate the claim.

  • GOAT Company Ltd t/a Goat Games

    • Internet (video)
    • 19 May 2021

    A pre-roll ad on YouTube for an online game was banned for being likely to cause serious or widespread offence or harm by objectifying women.

  • JST Nutrition Ltd

    • Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
    • 19 May 2021

    Seven posts on Jodie Marsh's Instagram account, promoting a food supplement retailer, were banned for making specific health claims which were not were authorised on the GB Register and for not ensuring that the posts were obviously identifiable as ads.

  • SWAG MASHA LLC

    • In-game (apps)
    • 19 May 2021

    An in-game ad for a dating simulation game, which appeared in an online property trading game, was banned for objectifying women and for presenting gender stereotypes in a way that was likely to cause harm. 

  • Blood and Medical Services Ltd t/a Vivo Clinic Shop

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content)
    • 05 May 2021

    A website ad for a health clinic was banned for making misleading claims about the speed at which they could provide the results for Covid-19 tests.

  • Homeopathy UK

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content)
    • 05 May 2021

    A website ad for a homeopathy clinic was banned for discouraging essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought.

  • Max Mara Fashion Group Srl

    • Upheld
    • Magazine (paid ad)
    • 05 May 2021

    A magazine ad for a clothing retailer was banned for including a model who appeared unhealthily thin.

  • Justyouroutfit.com Ltd t/a Just Your Outfit

    • Upheld
    • Internet (on own site)
    • 21 April 2021

    Three website listings for clothing products were banned for misleadingly implying that they contained exclusively faux fur with no real animal fur.

  • Babyboo Fashion Pty Ltd t/a Babyboo Fashion

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 14 April 2021

    A paid-for Instagram post by an online clothing retailer was banned for being likely to cause serious or widespread offence by objectifying women.

  • Gallaher Ltd t/a JTI UK

    • Upheld in part
    • VOD
    • 14 April 2021

    A video ad for a nicotine pouch product was banned for implying that nicotine pouches had mood-alerting or stimulant effects which made gaming more enjoyable.

  • Not Guilty Food Co Ltd t/a The Skinny Food Co

    • Upheld
    • Social media (own site)
    • 14 April 2021

    A Facebook post promoting spice mixes was banned as the product’s name implied that it could help consumers lose weight.

  • Grey Technology Ltd t/a Gtech

    • Upheld in part
    • Newspaper, Internet (website content)
    • 07 April 2021

    Two newspaper ads and a website ad for a vacuum cleaner were banned for implying the product could completely eliminate dust clouds without holding adequate evidence to prove this.

  • Jetsun Sunbeds

    • Upheld
    • Internet (social networking)
    • 07 April 2021

    A Facebook post promoting sunbeds misleadingly and irresponsibly claimed that health benefits were obtained from the use of sunbeds.

  • Prettylittlething.com Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Internet (social networking)
    • 07 April 2021

    A TikTok post by influencers promoting a fashion brand broke the CAP Code as it was not obviously identifiable as an ad.

  • UAB Commerce Core t/a FitsWatch

    • Upheld
    • Internet (video)
    • 07 April 2021

    A paid-for YouTube ad for a smart watch was banned for showing an Apple Watch to promote a different product. We referred the matter to CAP’s Compliance team.

  • DNAfit Life Sciences Ltd t/a DNAfit

    • Upheld
    • Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
    • 31 March 2021

    A paid-for Instagram ad for a health and wellbeing company was banned for misleadingly implying they could provide consumers with effective personalised exercise and nutrition advice based on sequencing of their DNA that would result in improved health and fitness outcomes.