Rulings (189)
  • ARSJ Holding Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Internet (on own site), Social media (paid ad)
    • 11 May 2022

    We upheld complaints against health claims in an ad for Brite Drinks.

  • Brand Evangelists for Beauty Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (own site)
    • 11 May 2022

    We banned an ad for making claims about a caffeinated hair product that couldn’t be substantiated.

  • PEL Consultancy Services Ltd t/a PEL Investigations

    • Upheld
    • Search (paid)
    • 11 May 2022

    We banned an ad for a private investigation agency for having unsubstantiated claims.

  • Tesco Mobile Ltd t/a Tesco Mobile

    • Upheld in part
    • National newspaper (paid ad), Poster, Social media (paid ad)
    • 11 May 2022

    We banned ads for replacing expletives with food terms.

  • UAB Ekomlita t/a nuubu

    • Upheld
    • Internet (display)
    • 11 May 2022

    We partly upheld complaints against ads for kitchen knives.

  • Adidas UK Ltd t/a Adidas

    • Upheld
    • Poster, Social media (own site)
    • 11 May 2022

    We upheld complaints against ads containing nudity.

  • American Golf (Trading) Ltd t/a Onlinegolf

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 10 August 2022

    A website of an online golf retailer misled consumers by omitting significant information about a free trial for a shot tracking device because it did not make clear they would have to pay a subscription to access the data provided by the device

  • Arsenal Football Club plc

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 10 August 2022

    [Republished ruling] A Facebook post and website post by Arsenal Football Club promoting fan tokens were misleading because they did not make sufficiently clear that the value of investments in paid-for Fan Tokens was variable and as cryptoassets they were unregulated; omitted material information, including that free ...

  • Huel Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Audio (podcast)
    • 10 August 2022

    A podcast ad was banned as the commercial intent behind it was not made clear upfront and it was not obviously identifiable as an ad

  • ITAE Productions Ltd t/a The VIVIT Experience ; VIVIT

    • Upheld
    • Email
    • 10 August 2022

    An email for a Father’s Day promotion that featured a picture Fred West was banned for being likely to cause serious or widespread offence and distress

  • Lebara Mobile Ltd t/a Lebara Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 10 August 2022

    Claims on the company’s website for its 30-day SIM-only plans were misleading because the “unlimited” minutes and text services were subject to a cap on usage

  • Sky UK Ltd t/a Sky, Now TV

    • Upheld
    • Email, Internet (website content)
    • 10 August 2022

    Claims on a website and in an email about being the “top-performing major broadband provider” and which implied Sky had won an award from Ofcom were misleading

  • Elite Aesthetic Clinic Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (own site)
    • 03 August 2022

    Three ads on social media were banned for advertising Kenalog, a prescription-only treatment.

  • Fanatics (International) Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content)
    • 03 August 2022

    A website promotion was misleading because customers had not received the discount on the advertised product when using a promotional code.

  • FlexFuel-Energy Development

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content)
    • 03 August 2022

    An ad on the company’s website misleadingly implied that misleadingly implied that a hydrogen-injection treatment for engines could reduce carbon emissions without evidence.

  • Golden Leaves Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content)
    • 03 August 2022

    An ad on the company’s website misleadingly implied that their MDF coffins were more eco-friendly than other options, without sufficient evidence.

  • JC Atkinson & Son Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content)
    • 03 August 2022

    An ad on the company’s website misleadingly implied that their MDF coffins were more eco-friendly than other options, without sufficient evidence.

  • PCK SKIN (Manchester) Ltd t/a SkinSpaceUK

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content)
    • 03 August 2022

    An ad on the company’s website stated that treatment could eliminate dark circles around the eyes without sufficient evidence

  • PlanetArt UK Ltd t/a FreePrints

    • Upheld
    • App (own claim)
    • 03 August 2022

    An ad on the company’s app misleadingly told consumers they could get free photo prints, without mentioning postage charges.

  • Rank Digital Gaming (Alderney) Ltd

    • Upheld
    • App (paid ad)
    • 03 August 2022

    An in-app ad for a mobile casino game irresponsibly suggested that gambling was a way to solve financial concerns and achieve financial security.