Rulings (16)
  • North Wests Competitions Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
    • 14 April 2021

    Two Instagram posts by an influencer promoting a free giveaway were banned for not being obviously identifiable as ads.

  • Team HARD Racing Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad), Website (paid ad)
    • 17 March 2021

    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

    • Upheld in part
    • 10 March 2021

    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

    • Upheld
    • Social media (own site)
    • 03 March 2021

    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

    • Upheld
    • Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
    • 03 February 2021

    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

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 13 January 2021

    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

    • Upheld
    • Internet (on own site)
    • 16 December 2020

    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

    • Upheld
    • 02 December 2020

    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

    • Upheld
    • 02 December 2020

    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

    • Upheld
    • Internet (social networking)
    • 04 November 2020

    A TikTok post by Emily Canham about a GHD branded hairdryer was banned for not being obviously identifiable as an ad.

  • Omaze Inc

    • Upheld
    • 07 October 2020

    A website promotion for a house raffle competition did not clearly explain the free route entry.

  • Basetan

    • Upheld
    • Internet (social networking)
    • 02 September 2020

    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

    • Upheld
    • Leaflet
    • 05 August 2020

    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

    • Upheld
    • Internet (sales promotion)
    • 06 May 2020

    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.


    • Upheld
    • Internet (social networking)
    • 06 May 2020

    A tweet by Lord Alan Sugar and Stylsmile UK did not make clear it was an ad.

  • Procter & Gamble (Health & Beauty Care) Ltd

    • Not upheld
    • Internet (on own site), Website (own site), Television
    • 29 April 2020

    A TV ad and website claims for an anti-ageing moisturiser did not mislead about the level of sun protection the product provided