-
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.
-
Dr Bunny Aesthetics
An online listing for a cosmetic surgery practitioner advertised prescription-only medicines and misleadingly implied a doctor or someone with a general medical qualification ran the service.
-
The Sky Mining Company Ltd t/a Sky Mining
A press ad, Instagram ad and website did not make it clear that the company’s diamonds were synthetic, which was misleading.
-
Nationwide Building Society t/a Nationwide
TV, radio and press ads for Nationwide were misleading as consumers were likely to understand that the building society had made a long-term decision not to close their branches and that they had not recently closed any branches when this was not the case.
-
Not Guilty Food Co Ltd t/a The Skinny Food Co
An Instagram Reel on Katie Price’s account was not obviously recognisable as an ad, irresponsibly promoted a diet that fell below 800 calories a day, and made weight loss claims for the products shown that aren’t authorised on the GB NHC Register.
-
Sparks Information PTE Ltd t/a Hunting Sniper
A paid-for Facebook ad for Hunting Sniper, a mobile app game, featured realistic footage of harm to animals, which was likely to cause widespread offence and unjustified distress.
-
John Mills Ltd t/a JML Direct
A TV ad for a cleaning tool presented gender stereotypes in a way that was likely to cause harm.
-
Vytaliving Ltd
A press ad for nutritional tablets claimed a food could treat, prevent or cure human disease, featured claims that were not authorised on the GB NHC Register, and made misleading claims around savings.
-
Aldi Stores Ltd t/a Aldi
A wrap around national press ad made misleading comparative claims which could not be verified, as well as a misleading claim about prices compared to last year.
-
DUSK (Retail) Ltd
A TV ad was not likely to cause serious or widespread offence over its portrayal of men.
-
6G Internet Ltd t/a 6Gi
A leaflet for a home broadband provider made misleading claims about providing full fibre broadband.
-
Rebecca Louise t/a rebeccalouise95
A poster for a model’s OnlyFans account was inappropriately targeted and likely to cause widespread offence.
-
Transport For London t/a TFL
A TV ad, radio ads and a press ad for Transport for London’s Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) expansion contained some misleading claims about reductions in levels of nitrous oxide in central London.
-
Vizor Apps Ltd
A pre-roll YouTube ad for a mobile app game was likely to cause serious or widespread offence, included a gender stereotype in a way that was likely to cause harm and was socially irresponsible.
-
Gamehaus Network Technology Co Ltd
An in-app ad for a mobile game featuring an incestuous relationship, suggesting a child had been sexualised and groomed by an adult and portraying a child in a sexual way was likely to cause serious and widespread offence.
-
Grandbing Technology Co Ltd t/a On Fancy
A website for an online clothing retailer portrayed a child in a sexual way and was irresponsible.
-
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.
-
Outsourceful Ltd t/a Outsourceful
An email and website for a recruitment agency perpetuated harmful racial stereotypes and were likely to cause serious offence.
-
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.
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 (83)