-
Aspro Atlantic Medikal Turizm Ticaret Limited Şirketi t/a AsproMED
A paid-for Facebook ad for cosmetic surgery abroad was irresponsible, trivialised the decision to undergo surgery, contained misleading claims about bariatic surgery and misleadingly omitted information regarding the need for pre-consultation.
-
Ersoy Health Services Tourism Ltd t/a Clinic Haus
A paid-for Facebook ad for cosmetic surgery abroad irresponsibly implied a time-limited promotion, trivialised the decision to undergo surgery and misleadingly omitted information regarding the need for pre-consultation.
-
BPerfect Ltd
A TikTok video on Stephanie Vavron’s account was not obviously identifiable as an ad.
-
Vir Health Ltd t/a Numan
A TV ad for a hair loss treatment guaranteed the efficacy of the product, breaking the Code.
-
Lenovo Technology (UK) Ltd
An email contained the misleading claim “Get 10% off any product”.
-
Space NK Ltd t/a Space.NK
A competition via an Instagram post did not award a prize in accordance with change, was not administered fairly and omitted significant conditions.
-
Witcombe Festival
A competition via Instagram post didn’t award the winner the promised prize or a reasonable equivalent.
-
HJ Heinz Foods UK Ltd t/a Heinz
A packaging promotion for ‘free days out’ omitted significant conditions.
-
May Health Tourism Services t/a MAYCLINIK
A paid-for Google search ad made misleading and irresponsible claims about safety, and made references that trivialised the decision to undergo cosmetic surgery.
-
Pasifik Health Services Inc t/a Care In Turkey
A paid-for Google search ad made misleading claims about ‘world-class doctors’ that could not be substantiated, and made misleading and irresponsible claims about safety.
-
Erdem Clinic
Four posts on Millie Bracewell’s TikTok account were not obviously identifiable as ads, trivialised the decision to undergo cosmetic surgery and were directed at under-18s through the context they appeared in.
-
Coty UK Ltd t/a Coty UK Ltd
A paid-for Facebook ad for Rimmel London, seen on 9 September 2023, included the caption “Get ready to slay this back to school season [books emoji] [stars emoji] Get 25% off Multi-Tasker Concealer and other Rimmel faves with code B2S25 only at lookfantastic.com”. The post included a video of influencer ...
-
REVIV UK Ltd t/a REVIV
The website for REVIV UK, www.revivme.com/london, seen 1 April 2019, stated on the main page for its London clinic “REVIV IV infusion therapies deliver hydration, vitamins, and antioxidants helping to optimise vital hydration balance and maximise your wellness & efficiency. Whether looking to boost your immun...
-
Golden Tanning Salon Ltd t/a Golden Tanning Salon
A TikTok post linked health claims to using a tanning bed, which was misleading, irresponsible and inappropriately targeted.
-
Person(s) unknown
A TikTok post misleadingly and irresponsibly linked health claims to using a tanning bed, discouraged seeking essential treatment for conditions where medical supervision should be sought, and was inappropriately targeted.
-
Procter & Gamble UK t/a Always
A TV ad for Always Discreet incontinence pads did not compare the product to the most appropriate version from the leading brand, and contained on-screen text whose placement misleading implied that 95% of women surveyed preferred the Always Discreet pad to the maxi pad from the leading brand.
-
CrypticKits
A TikTok post and Instagram post misleadingly implied that people could buy football shirts for £1
-
D&A Cosmetics Ltd
A TikTok post on Aimee Crowder’s account exaggerated the efficacy of a lip plumper.
-
WHM Hair Transplant and Aesthetics t/a WHM Clinic
A paid-for Facebook ad for cosmetic surgery abroad was irresponsible for exploiting insecurities around body image, trivialised the decision to undergo cosmetic surgery and omitted information about the need for a pre consultation.
-
TJC & BLC Aesthetics Clinic & Training Academy
A Facebook post misleadingly did not make clear the nature, requirements, qualifications and possible registration details of a course, and contained the claims that the course was “Fully Accredited”, which could not be substantiated.
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 (51)