-
Wowcher Ltd
A website failed to administer a promotion fairly and caused unnecessary disappointment.
-
Groupe SEB UK Ltd t/a Tefal
A website product page for a set of pans misleadingly implied that a discount offer could be used for particular products when that was not the case.
-
Shop TJC Ltd t/a Ideal World
A teleshopping presentation made unsubstantiated price and savings claims.
-
Meggan Kirkland
A promotion on Meggan Kirkland’s Instagram account wasn’t administered fairly.
-
Beer52 Ltd
Two email promotions omitted significant conditions.
-
Origin Sleep UK Ltd t/a Origin Mattress
A website implied that a promotion was time limited when this wasn’t the case, made misleading and unsubstantiated savings claims and made unsubstantiated claims about the health properties of their products.
-
Churchill Retirement Living Ltd
A national newspaper ad failed to include the significant conditions of a promotion, including a closing date.
-
Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd
A website promotion misleadingly described a promotional item as “free”, did not make clear promotional items would have to be purchased upfront before being redeemed via a cashback mechanism and omitted significant conditions.
-
Sports Supplements Ltd t/a Bulk
An email contained a promotion which wasn't capable of being used and so wasn't administered fairly.
-
Sky UK Ltd t/a NOW
A website ad for NOW TV omitted material information about the inclusion of ads in basic streaming membership plans.
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 (10)