-
ARSJ Holding Ltd
We upheld complaints against health claims in an ad for Brite Drinks.
-
Brand Evangelists for Beauty Ltd
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
We banned an ad for a private investigation agency for having unsubstantiated claims.
-
Tesco Mobile Ltd t/a Tesco Mobile
We banned ads for replacing expletives with food terms.
-
UAB Ekomlita t/a nuubu
We partly upheld complaints against ads for kitchen knives.
-
WaterWipes UC
A paid-for Facebook ad for wipes was banned because ‘world’s purest wipes’ was found to be a misleading and unverifiable claim.
-
Wild Drinks Group Ltd t/a Whisp Drinks
We banned an ad on Rosie Breen’s TikTok page for making health claims about an alcoholic product, encouraging excessive drinking and featuring someone under 25 years of age.
-
OPTILASE (UK) LIMITED
An online promotion for laser eye surgery was found to be misleading and irresponsible.
-
Person(s) unknown
We banned an online ad for a company claiming to be able to treat depression and other medical conditions, over unsubstantiated claims over treatments’ efficacy.
-
Capri Sun GmbH
A banner ad was unlikely to be obviously identifiable as such by its audience, young children, and therefore ‘enhanced’ disclosure was required.
-
First Trenitalia West Coast Rail Ltd t/a Avanti West Coast
A website for a train company made misleading claims that its ticket prices could not be beaten.
-
IMC Toys UK Ltd
A banner ad was unlikely to be obviously identifiable as such by its audience, young children, and therefore ‘enhanced’ disclosure was required.
-
IMC Toys UK Ltd
A banner ad was unlikely to be obviously identifiable as such by its audience, young children, and therefore ‘enhanced’ disclosure was required.
-
Take Stock Foods Ltd
A paid-for TikTok post for a soup company broke the rules by claiming that its food products could treat or cure acne.
-
Ten Percent Music Elite Group Ltd t/a TPM the Label
An Instagram post promoting a prize draw did not award prizes as described and was not administered fairly.
-
Trailfinders Ltd
A holiday brochure was misleading because it did not make it sufficiently clear that special offers on free nights and free room upgrades were subject to restrictions.
-
U K Insurance Ltd t/a Churchill
A banner ad was unlikely to be obviously identifiable as such by its audience - young children, and therefore ‘enhanced’ disclosure was required.
-
Evergreens (UK) Ltd t/a ArtificialGrass.com
A website and two YouTube video ads for artificial grass were misleading as they overstated the environmental benefits and air purifying qualities of the products.
-
J Sainsbury plc t/a Sainsbury's
A radio and TV ad for Sainsbury which promoted the general benefits to the environment of reducing meat protein in substitution for plant protein were not misleading.
-
Partex Global GmbH
A website for auto parts omitted material information about the advertiser’s geographical location and misleadingly implied that the advertiser was based in the UK, when that was not the case.
Rulings
Our rulings are published every Wednesday and set out on the public record how, following 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, following receipt of a complaint, agreed to amend or withdraw their ad without the need for a formal investigation.
Rulings (183)