-
North Wests Competitions Ltd
Two Instagram posts by an influencer promoting a free giveaway were banned for not being obviously identifiable as ads.
-
Team HARD Racing Ltd
A paid-for Instagram post and a website post promoting a competition to win a car breached the CAP Code as it was administered unfairly.
-
Camden Town Brewery Ltd
A TV ad for a brewery was banned for presenting a giveaway of free items in an unclear way that confused it with a prize draw. The same ad was not likely to appeal strongly to children.
-
Molly-Mae Hague t/a mollymaehague
An Instagram post by influencer Molly Mae Hague promoting a prize draw broke the CAP Code as there was no evidence that the prize was awarded in accordance with the laws of chance or under the supervision of an independent person.
-
We Are Luxe Ltd t/a TANOLOGIST TAN, in association with Cinzia Baylis-Zullo
An Instagram story by an influencer promoting a beauty product was banned for applying a filter which misleadingly exaggerated the effect the product was capable of achieving.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Jemella Ltd t/a GHD
A TikTok post by Emily Canham about a GHD branded hairdryer was banned for not being obviously identifiable as an ad.
-
Omaze Inc
A website promotion for a house raffle competition did not clearly explain the free route entry.
-
Basetan
A Facebook post promoting a tanning salon misleadingly implied sunbeds were the most efficient way to increase vitamin D levels and discouraged essential treatment for medical conditions.
-
Harvey Water Softeners Ltd
A leaflet for a water softener misleadingly claimed that the product produced glossier hair and softer skin.
-
Hydro Solutions Fylde Ltd t/a Elite Competitions
A website page for prize competitions was misleading because the free entry route was unclear, the closing date was extended without good reason and a prize of 70% of ticket sales was not a reasonable equivalent to the advertised prizes.
-
STYLIDEAS Ltd
A tweet by Lord Alan Sugar and Stylsmile UK did not make clear it was an ad.
-
Procter & Gamble (Health & Beauty Care) Ltd
A TV ad and website claims for an anti-ageing moisturiser did not mislead about the level of sun protection the product provided
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 (16)