-
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.
-
6G Internet Ltd t/a 6Gi
A leaflet for a home broadband provider made misleading claims about providing full fibre broadband.
-
BPerfect Ltd
A TikTok video on Stephanie Vavron’s account was not obviously identifiable as an ad.
-
OneCompress
Two paid-for Facebook ads for bamboo gloves and socks made medical claims for unlicensed products.
-
Simba Sleep Ltd
A website featured misleading claims around reference prices and associated savings.
-
Vir Health Ltd t/a Numan
A TV ad for a hair loss treatment guaranteed the efficacy of the product, breaking the Code.
-
Volkswagen Group United Kingdom Ltd t/a Audi
A Video on Demand ad for an electric car featured misleading claims about charging time and mileage.
-
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”.
-
Space NK Ltd t/a Space.NK
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
A paid-for ad on Facebook linked alcohol with an activity where drinking would be unsafe or unwise, and was irresponsible.
-
Ford Motor Company Ltd t/a Ford
A paid-for Google ad did not mislead when claiming a car had ‘zero emissions driving’.
-
GMRD Apps Ltd t/a Impulse Brain Training
A paid-for Facebook ad for a puzzle game app made medical claims without being registered with the MHRA and discouraged people from seeking essential treatment for ADHD.
-
Happyo
A paid-for Facebook ad for a behaviour programme aimed at those with ADHD made medical claims without being registered with the MHRA and discouraged people from seeking essential treatment for a condition where medical supervision should be sought.
-
Supreme CBD Ltd t/a Supreme CBD
Four posts on X (formerly Twitter) were not obviously identifiable as ads, and claimed that a food could treat insomnia and anxiety.
-
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.
-
BMW (UK) Ltd
A paid-for Google ad misleadingly represented a vehicle’s environmental impact.
-
Greater London Authority
A radio ad about the ULEZ expansion misleadingly claimed that one of the most polluted places in London is inside people’s cars.
-
MG Motor UK Ltd
A paid-for Google ad misleadingly represented a vehicle’s environmental impact.
-
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.
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 (212)