Rulings (264)
  • Aspro Atlantic Medikal Turizm Ticaret Limited Şirketi t/a AsproMED

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 27 September 2023

    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.

  • Easigrass (Distribution) Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site), Social media (own site)
    • 27 March 2024

    A Facebook post and website for artificial grass made misleading claims about recyclability, and misleadingly implied the product was eco friendly.

  • John Mills Ltd t/a JML Direct

    • Upheld
    • Television
    • 27 March 2024

    A TV ad for a cleaning tool presented gender stereotypes in a way that was likely to cause harm.

  • Vytaliving Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Press general
    • 27 March 2024

    A press add 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

    • Upheld
    • National press
    • 20 March 2024

    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

    • Not upheld
    • Television
    • 20 March 2024

    A TV ad was not likely to cause serious or widespread offence over its portrayal of men.

  • Electronic Arts Ltd t/a EA

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 20 March 2024

    Two paid-for Facebook ads for Golf Clash, a mobile app game, omitted material information about the inclusion of loot boxes.

  • Hing Fo International Ltd t/a ALFABAR

    • Upheld in part
    • Poster
    • 20 March 2024

    A poster for an electronic cigarettes brand was irresponsible for being likely to appeal particularly to under-18s, but was not inappropriately targeted. 

  • Jagex Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 20 March 2024

    A paid-for Facebook ad for online game RuneScape omitted material information about the inclusion of loot boxes.

  • LeoVegas Gaming plc t/a Bet MGM

    • Not upheld
    • Television
    • 20 March 2024

    A TV ad for Bet MGM featuring Chris Rock was not likely to be of strong appeal to under-18s.

  • Lindar Media Ltd t/a MRQ.com

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 20 March 2024

    A paid-for Facebook ad for gaming website MrQ.com featured cartoon imagery that was likely to be of strong appeal to under-18s.

  • Miniclip (UK) Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 20 March 2024

    A paid-for Facebook ad for an online game omitted material information about the inclusion of loot boxes.

  • Worldwide Trademarks sro t/a Worldwide Trademarks

    • Upheld
    • Direct mail
    • 20 March 2024

    A direct mailing was not obviously identifiable as an ad, and misleadingly had the appearance of an invoice.

  • 6G Internet Ltd t/a 6Gi

    • Upheld
    • Leaflet
    • 06 March 2024

    A leaflet for a home broadband provider made misleading claims about providing full fibre broadband.

  • BPerfect Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
    • 06 March 2024

    A TikTok video on Stephanie Vavron’s account was not obviously identifiable as an ad.

  • OneCompress

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 06 March 2024

    Two paid-for Facebook ads for bamboo gloves and socks made medical claims for unlicensed products.

  • Simba Sleep Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content)
    • 06 March 2024

    A website featured misleading claims around reference prices and associated savings.

  • Vir Health Ltd t/a Numan

    • Upheld
    • Television
    • 06 March 2024

    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

    • Upheld
    • VOD
    • 06 March 2024

    A Video on Demand ad for an electric car featured misleading claims about charging time and mileage.

  • Hovis Ltd t/a Hovis

    • Not upheld
    • Internet (website content), Social media (own site)
    • 28 February 2024

    Three webpages and an Instagram post did not misleadingly use the terms “rustic”, “authentical”, “traditional”, “artisanal-inspired bread” and “no artificial preservatives”.