Rulings (154)
  • ARSJ Holding Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Internet (on own site), Social media (paid ad)
    • 11 May 2022

    We upheld complaints against health claims in an ad for Brite Drinks.

  • Brand Evangelists for Beauty Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (own site)
    • 11 May 2022

    We banned an ad for making claims about a caffeinated hair product that couldn’t be substantiated.

  • PEL Consultancy Services Ltd t/a PEL Investigations

    • Upheld
    • Search (paid)
    • 11 May 2022

    We banned an ad for a private investigation agency for having unsubstantiated claims.

  • CheaperWaste Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content)
    • 18 May 2022

    A website that included a page for comparing waste companies did not make clear it was for the purposes of lead generation, misleadingly presented the nature of the services office and implied that they were price comparison services when that was not the case.

  • Liquid Lipo Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 18 May 2022

    A product listing on a website that claimed a gel could assist with the reduction of body fat was misleading as the advertiser did not provide robust clinical evidence to prove its efficacy.

  • Barton Park Estates Ltd t/a Devon Oaks Park; Seascapes

    • Upheld
    • Television
    • 04 May 2022

    An ad for luxury park homes was banned for being misleading.

  • Jaguar Land Rover Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Television
    • 04 May 2022

    We banned ads for suggesting a parking sensor could alert drivers to a cliff edge.

  • Leisure Wear Ltd t/a SnuggyUK

    • Upheld
    • Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
    • 04 May 2022

    We banned ads for hooded blankets on Jake Quickenden’s Instagram profile for not being clearly identifiable as ads.

  • Linia Cosmetic Surgery

    • Upheld in part
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 04 May 2022

    We partially upheld complaints about ads seen on Facebook for breast augmentation for being irresponsible.

  • My Pharmacy (UK) Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 04 May 2022

    We upheld complaints about ads for a vitamin supplement .

  • Oneade

    • Upheld
    • Social media (own site)
    • 04 May 2022

    We banned an ad for using filters to exaggerate a beauty product’s efficacy.

  • Skill on Net Ltd

    • Upheld in part
    • Television, Internet (website content)
    • 04 May 2022

    We banned ads for a gambling product for being misleading and irresponsible.

  • Virgin Media Ltd

    • Upheld in part
    • Television, Internet (website content)
    • 04 May 2022

    We partially upheld complaints from BT over two ads for Virgin Media.

  • Mondelez UK Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content)
    • 27 April 2022

    A website ad for a Cadburys promotion was banned for omitting significant terms and conditions.

  • AppQuantum Publishing Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 13 April 2022

    We upheld a complaint against an ad for a mobile game that showed inaccurate gameplay footage.

  • Stillbloom Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Internet (video)
    • 13 April 2022

    An ad for lead generation service CleverKeith has been banned for misleading advertising.

  • Bighams Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Packaging (promotion)
    • 30 March 2022

    A product packaging ad promoting a competition to win a campervan broke the CAP Code as the promotion was not administered fairly.  

  • Chinnock Housing Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Direct mail
    • 30 March 2022

    A direct mailing for a property company was banned for not being obviously identifiable as an ad. 

  • Currys Group Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Internet (video)
    • 30 March 2022

    A pre-roll YouTube ad for Currys which showed people riding e-scooters was banned for irresponsibly suggesting that electric scooters could be used in public places in the UK.

  • Health Technologies Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site), Social media (own site)
    • 30 March 2022

    Three ads for a Covid-19 testing service were banned for being misleading.