-
XC Trains Ltd t/a Cross Country Trains
A webpage made misleading claims about the availability of complimentary food and drink for First Class passengers on Cross Country Trains.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Worldwide Trademarks sro t/a Worldwide Trademarks
A direct mailing was not obviously identifiable as an ad, and misleadingly had the appearance of an invoice.
-
Hovis Ltd t/a Hovis
Three webpages and an Instagram post did not misleadingly use the terms “rustic”, “authentical”, “traditional”, “artisanal-inspired bread” and “no artificial preservatives”.
-
Lenovo Technology (UK) Ltd
An email contained the misleading claim “Get 10% off any product”.
-
BKUK Group Ltd t/a Burger King
Three emails for foods in high in fat, salt or sugar (HFSS) were directed at children through the media in which they appeared.
-
Lynne McTaggart
Two marketing emails and a website made misleading claims about alternative medicine treating medical conditions, and discouraged people seeking essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought.
-
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.
-
Outsourceful Ltd t/a Outsourceful
An email and website for a recruitment agency perpetuated harmful racial stereotypes and were likely to cause serious offence.
-
FunPlus International AG t/a Funplus
An in-app ad for a mobile game was likely to cause serious offence by trivialising and condoning sexual assault and sexual violence.
-
Zzoomm plc
A direct mailing misleadingly stated the savings someone could make with their broadband service.
-
Eurostar International Ltd
A promotional email that advertised trips for £39 was misleading for not having enough tickets at that price point.
-
EFL Digital Ltd t/a EFL
Two online calendar events for The English Football League (EFL) and Papa John’s: a. The first calendar event, seen on 21 October 2022, featured the headline “[football emoji] Papa Johns Trophy: Stevenage vs Tottenham Hotspur U21”. Text within the event stated “We’ve partnered with Papa...
-
Kentucky Fried Chicken (Great Britain) Ltd t/a KFC
An email and two outdoor poster ads for KFC, seen in October and November 2023: a. The email included an image with text that stated “FINALLY F CKIN’ GOOD”. The letters between the “F” and “CKIN’” were covered by chips. Text underneath stated "NOT-SO HUMBLE BRAG. ...
-
Kollo Health Ltd
A paid-for Facebook ad for liquid collagen claimed it could reduce wrinkles and cause thicker hair, which could not be substantiated, and made specific health claims which had not been authorised on the GB Register.
-
Organic Burst World SA t/a Organic Burst
A paid-for Facebook ad claimed that food supplement spirulina could treat vitamin B12 deficiency and therefore reverse the growth of grey hair, which breached the rules on claiming a food supplement can treat clinical vitamin deficiencies and symptoms.
-
Shenzhen Guangming District Kangshuo E-Commerce Firm t/a Health Support Store
A paid-for ad on AliExpress was irresponsible for featuring a model that appeared unhealthily thin and made medicinal claims for an unlicensed product.
-
THG Nutrition Limited t/a My Protein
A TikTok post for a MyProtein promotion did not set out qualifying criteria for entry clearly and omitted significant conditions.
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 (38)