-
Manchestersalerent.co.uk
A house listing on an estate agent’s website was banned as the property was no longer available for purchase.
-
Microlyscs LLC t/a The Crazy Cap
A Facebook post promoting a bottle cap was banned for implying that it could kill all bacteria, viruses and pathogens without holding evidence to substantiate the claim.
-
OverStreet.co.uk
A house listing on an estate agent’s website was banned as the property was no longer available for purchase.
-
Unilever UK Ltd
A paid-for Facebook post by Boots was banned for implying that a lotion product could protect babies’ skin microbiome without holding sufficient evidence to demonstrate that this was the case.
-
Edrington-Beam Suntory UK
A TV ad for whisky did not link alcohol with sexual activity and did not breach the BCAP Code.
-
Flights & Holidays UK Ltd
A website ad for an online travel agency was banned for making a misleading price claim for a flight from London to Orlando.
-
In The Style Fashion Ltd t/a In the Style
A website and Instagram post by an online fashion retailer were banned for implying that all their products were included in an offer when this was not actually the case.
-
Manuka Doctor (UK) Ltd
A newspaper ad for a brand of honey was banned for implying that it could be used as a treatment for coughs and for implying that its “anti-microbial” properties could treat diseases.
-
L(A)B Life and Beauty
A website post and three Facebook posts by a skin and healthcare company were banned for claiming its belt product could help consumers lose weight without substantial evidence to support the claim.
-
Lidl Great Britain Ltd
Two leaflets, a website, and two newspaper ads for Lidl products were banned for quoting unsubstantiated RRP claims.
-
Easylife Group Ltd t/a Easylife Group, Positive Health
A brochure ad for a skin product was banned for implying that it was effective at removing the appearance of wrinkles and removing skin tags, without adequate evidence.
-
Geraint Christopher t/a Hemp in Avalon
A newspaper and Instagram post by a hemp shop were banned for inciting people to break the law by discouraging them from wearing face coverings in shops.
-
KS Competitions Ltd
A website ad promoting a competition to win hair products breached the CAP Code for not explaining the free entry route and for stating that its closing date would be extended if all tickets were not sold.
-
SCA Investments Ltd t/a Gousto
A website ad for the meal subscription service Gousto misleadingly stated that their packaging was 100% plastic free and misleadingly stated that it was 100% recyclable.
-
Health Solutions Ltd
A leaflet for a healthcare service was banned for implying that their food supplements could prevent, treat or cure human disease.
-
Licensed Taxi Drivers Association Ltd t/a LTDA
A radio ad promoting London black cab services exaggerated the extent to which features of the taxis could reduce the spread of COVID-19.
-
Rightio Ltd
A paid-for Google Ad for a plumbing service misleadingly stated that a call-out charge did not apply for diagnostic work carried out by engineers.
-
BrewDog plc
Poster and press ads for BrewDog beer broke the rules on offence by using a reference to an expletive in media targeted to a general audience. The same ad appearing in targeted magazines did not break the rules.
-
Person(s) unknown t/a TBM Enterprises and Thebettingman
An Instagram story by Sam Gowland was not obviously identifiable as an ad and broke the rules on social responsibility for suggesting using betting tipsters was a way of achieving financial security.
-
TUI UK Ltd
Claims on a travel and tourism company website for hotel rooms were not misleading.
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 (124)