Rulings (44)
  • Glamour Shots

    • Upheld
    • Search (paid)
    • 09 July 2025

    A paid-for Google search ad for eBay was irresponsible and likely to cause serious offence by objectifying and sexualising women.

  • Cosmos Oyun Yazilim Sanayi Ticaret Ltd Sirketi t/a Filter AI

    • Upheld
    • In-game (apps)
    • 02 July 2025

    An in-game ad was socially irresponsible and caused serious offence, including by featuring a harmful gender stereotype that objectified women.

  • Wuxi Zhan'ao E-commerce Co Ltd t/a Lpows.com

    • Upheld
    • Website (paid ad)
    • 02 July 2025

    A paid-for YouTube ad featured a gender stereotype that was likely to cause harm or serious offence.

  • HOMA Games SAS

    • Upheld
    • 25 June 2025

    An in-game ad was socially irresponsible and caused serious or widespread offence, including by featuring a harmful stereotype by objectifying women.

  • Honeytech Ltd t/a Honeytoon

    • Upheld
    • 25 June 2025

    Two paid-for X ads were socially irresponsible, featured harmful gender stereotypes and caused serious or widespread offence, including referencing incest, featuring scenes that depicted women as objects of sexual gratification and trivialising sexual assault.

  • Diesel SpA t/a Diesel

    • Upheld in part
    • Website (paid ad)
    • 11 June 2025

    A paid-for ad featuring Katie Price was irresponsible and likely to cause serious offence by objectifying and sexualising women.

  • AirDoctor LLC t/a AmazingAir

    • Upheld
    • 28 May 2025

    A post on the health.detective Garstang Health Food Store’s TikTok account wasn't obviously identifiable as an ad and made medical claims for an unlicensed product.

  • UAB Convenity t/a Huusk

    • Upheld
    • 28 May 2025

    A TV ad for Huusk Knives was irresponsibly scheduled. 

  • air up GmbH

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 28 May 2025

    A paid-for TikTok ad was irresponsible and likely to cause serious or widespread offense.

  • GreenPixel Ltd t/a Hotel Merge Empire

    • Upheld
    • Game (mobile/app)
    • 21 May 2025

    An in-game ad was likely to cause serious or widespread offence, including by condoning domestic violence.

  • Cloud Whale Interactive Technology

    • Upheld
    • In-game (apps)
    • 07 May 2025

    An in-game ad was socially irresponsible, likely to cause serious or widespread offence and was irresponsibly targeted

  • Whaleco UK Ltd t/a Temu

    • Upheld
    • In-game (apps)
    • 07 May 2025

    An in-game ad was likely to cause serious or widespread offence.

  • Pressplay Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Press other (paid ad)
    • 16 April 2025

    A press ad for anti-glare driving glasses misleadingly implied they could prevent glare while driving and could make driving safer.

  • Barclays Bank plc

    • Not upheld
    • Magazine (paid ad)
    • 09 April 2025

    A magazine ad was unlikely to give a misleading impression of Barclay’s overall contribution to carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions.

  • Belle Baby Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 09 April 2025

    A website, which featured a product listing for a swimsuit, included an image of a child portrayed in a sexual way.

  • Hutchison 3G UK Ltd t/a Three Mobile

    • Not upheld
    • National newspaper (paid ad), Social media (paid ad), Internet (website content)
    • 02 April 2025

    A national press ad, two paid-for Meta ads and a website for Three Mobile didn’t make misleading ‘best value’ claims.

  • Floor Design Ltd t/a Flooring by Nature

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 19 February 2025

    A website failed to substantiate environmental claims and didn’t make clear that these claims referred to only part of a carpet, and the actions people would need to take for their carpet to successfully biodegrade.

  • High Seat Ltd t/a HSL

    • Upheld
    • Email, Website (own site), Leaflet
    • 12 February 2025

    A website, two emails and a leaflet didn’t make the limitations for guaranteed Christmas delivery clear.

  • Luxury Lodge Estates Company Ltd t/a Luxury Lodges

    • Upheld
    • Magazine (paid ad)
    • 12 February 2025

    A magazine ad didn’t make clear that the value of investments was variable, and that examples of past performance weren’t necessarily a guide to the future. It also failed to make the nature of a guarantee clear and didn’t include non-optional fees.

  • Royalux Competitions Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 15 January 2025

    A prize draw wasn't administered fairly and caused unnecessary disappointment. 

Informally resolved (1)
  • Toolport GmbH t/a House of Tents

    • 06 November 2024
    • Number of complaints: 1

    Topic: Home and garden