Rulings (97)
  • 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.

  • Maple Syrup Media Ltd t/a Quidco, Quidco.com

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content), Social media (own site)
    • 05 May 2021

    A website and Facebook ad for a cashback service provider were banned for making misleading claims.

  • Money Advisor Ltd t/a Money Advisor

    • Upheld in part
    • Television, Internet (website content)
    • 05 May 2021

    A TV and website ad for a debt advice service were banned for misleadingly implying that they were qualified to provide debt counselling or management services, or that they could help consumers write-off debt.

  • Learning Group Ltd t/a Montessori Tutors

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content)
    • 28 April 2021

    A website ad for a tutoring company was banned for quoting earnings figures that could not be adequately substantiated.

  • 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.

  • Missguided Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
    • 14 April 2021

    An Instagram post by influencer Zara McDermott promoting Missguided products was banned for not being obviously identifiable as an ad.

  • North Wests Competitions Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
    • 14 April 2021

    Two Instagram posts by an influencer promoting a free giveaway were banned for not being obviously identifiable as ads.

  • 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.

  • Flexible Digital Solutions Ltd

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

    A paid-for Facebook ad and a website ad for a debt advice service were banned for exaggerating the speed and ease of the process, trivialising the application process and for not stating the risks and fees associated with IVAs.

  • 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.

  • Kendal Nutricare Ltd t/a Kendamil

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

    Two Facebook ads for a formula milk manufacturer were banned for marketing infant formula, which is prohibited under the CAP Code.

  • 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.

  • RR Whisky Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Internet (social networking), Internet (website content)
    • 07 April 2021

    A Facebook and website ad for a whisky company were banned for irresponsibly linking the consumption of alcohol with mountaineering, an activity in which drinking would be unsafe.

  • TFLI Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Internet (social networking), Internet (website content)
    • 07 April 2021

    A paid-for Facebook ad and a website ad for a debt advice service were banned for exaggerating the speed and ease of the process, exaggerating the amount of debt that could be written off, as well as several other issues.

  • 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.

  • Campylite Investments Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content), Internet (video)
    • 31 March 2021

    A YouTube video and blog post for a building consultant were banned for denigrating one of their competitors by claiming they were scammers.