Rulings (36)
  • Global Brands Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
    • 13 March 2024

    A TikTok post on Danielle Walsh’s account irresponsibly encouraged excessive drinking and wasn’t obviously identifiable as an ad.

  • Banquist Ltd t/a Banquist, Winedrops

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 06 March 2024

    A paid-for Facebook ad for a wine retailer irresponsibly encouraged drinking unwisely.

  • Brown-Forman Beverages Europe Ltd t/a Jack Daniel's

    • Upheld
    • Poster
    • 28 February 2024

    A poster irresponsibly implied that drinking alcohol could overcome boredom and promoted adopting unwise drinking styles.

  • DUSK (Retail) Ltd

    • Not upheld
    • Television
    • 28 February 2024

    A TV ad did not irresponsibly imply that drinking alcohol had therapeutic qualities and could be used to cope with parenthood.

  • Lenovo Technology (UK) Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Email
    • 28 February 2024

    An email contained the misleading claim “Get 10% off any product”.

  • Space NK Ltd t/a Space.NK

    • Upheld
    • Social media (own site)
    • 28 February 2024

    A competition via an Instagram post did not award a prize in accordance with change, was not administered fairly and omitted significant conditions.

  • Strafe Esports Ltd t/a LevelTap

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 28 February 2024

    A paid-for ad on Facebook linked alcohol with an activity where drinking would be unsafe or unwise, and was irresponsible.

  • Witcombe Festival

    • Upheld
    • Social media (own site)
    • 07 February 2024

    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

    • Upheld
    • Packaging (promotion)
    • 24 January 2024

    A packaging promotion for ‘free days out’ omitted significant conditions.

  • BrewDog plc

    • Upheld
    • 20 December 2023

    An Instagram post by Brewdog, published on 31 July 2023, featured an image of a poster, containing a childlike drawing of Earth covered in flames. Text accompanying the drawing stated “drink it for me” in the style of a child’s handwriting. Text on the other half of the poster stated “BEER FOR Y...

  • CrypticKits

    • Upheld
    • Social media (own site)
    • 22 November 2023

    A TikTok post and Instagram post misleadingly implied that people could buy football shirts for £1

  • THG Nutrition Limited t/a My Protein

    • Upheld
    • Social media (own site)
    • 01 November 2023

    A TikTok post for a MyProtein promotion did not set out qualifying criteria for entry clearly and omitted significant conditions.

  • Imiracle (HK) Ltd t/a Elfbar

    • Upheld
    • Messaging app
    • 18 October 2023

    A post for Elf Bar on Discord directly promoted unlicensed nicotine-containing e-liquids in online media.

  • Prettylittlething.com Ltd t/a Prettylittlething.com

    • Upheld
    • Email
    • 27 September 2023

    An email ad failed to administer a pricing promotion via a discount code fairly.

  • Global Brands Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
    • 20 September 2023

    A TikTok ad for alcohol on Charly Anne Collard’s account was not immediately identifiable as an ad, was not appropriately targeted, irresponsibly condoned excessive drinking and featured individuals under the age of 25.

  • London and Quadrant Housing Trust

    • Upheld
    • Poster
    • 20 September 2023

    A poster for shared ownership property was not administered fairly and did not make the terms of the promotion sufficiently clear.

  • AB InBev UK Ltd t/a Camden Town Brewery

    • Upheld
    • Television
    • 23 August 2023

    A TV ad for Camden Town Brewery was of strong appeal to people under 18 years of age as it featured animated characters in a fun and engaging way that would appeal to a younger audience.

  • Au Vodka Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (own site)
    • 23 August 2023

    Three Instagram posts by Au Vodka irresponsibly referred to aggressive behaviour, linked alcohol with illicit drugs and tough and daring behaviour.

  • Blackford Casks Ltd t/a Whisky Investment Partners

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content), Social media (own site), Internet (display)
    • 23 August 2023

    An online display ad, website and two paid-for Facebook posts for a whisky cask investment company made misleading and unsubstantiated investment return claims, did not make the risks involved in whisky investment clear and took advantage of consumers’ inexperience and credulity.

  • London Cask Co Ltd t/a London Cask Company

    • Upheld
    • National newspaper (paid ad), Search (paid), Internet (website content)
    • 23 August 2023

    Two national newspaper ads, a website and a paid-for Google ad for a whisky cask investment company made misleading and unsubstantiated investment return claims and did not make the risks involved in whisky investment clear.