-
Jetsun Sunbeds
A Facebook post promoting sunbeds misleadingly and irresponsibly claimed that health benefits were obtained from the use of sunbeds.
-
Kendal Nutricare Ltd t/a Kendamil
Two Facebook ads for a formula milk manufacturer were banned for marketing infant formula, which is prohibited under the CAP Code.
-
DNAfit Life Sciences Ltd t/a DNAfit
A paid-for Instagram ad for a health and wellbeing company was banned for misleadingly implying they could provide consumers with effective personalised exercise and nutrition advice based on sequencing of their DNA that would result in improved health and fitness outcomes.
-
HiSmile Pty Ltd
A Snapchat story and a Facebook post promoting a teeth whitening company’s product were banned for misleadingly claiming their product had been clinically proven and for exaggerating its potential effects.
-
The Detox Clinic Ltd
A website ad for a health clinic was banned for misleadingly stating that ozone therapy could successfully treat Covid-19 and for stating that colon hydrotherapy could treat IBS without holding sufficient evidence to support the claim.
-
GHN Merchant Services Ltd t/a Good Health Naturally
Three website posts promoting products which claimed to provide protection from electromagnet radiation were banned for not holding substantial evidence to support the claims.
-
ITV Broadcasting Ltd
A TV ad by McDonald’s aired during an ad break for the film Nancy Drew was not found to have breached the BCAP Code.
-
Ryanair DAC
Two TV ads for Ryanair were banned for misleading viewers about the impact vaccines would have on their ability to travel abroad during Easter and summer. We also upheld complaints on the grounds of social responsibility.
-
LARQ
A paid-for Facebook post by a water bottle retailer was banned for implying that a bottle could kill all bacteria and viruses without holding substantial evidence to support the claim.
-
Microlyscs LLC t/a The Crazy Cap
A Facebook post promoting a bottle cap was banned for implying that it could kill all bacteria, viruses and pathogens without holding evidence to substantiate the claim.
-
Manuka Doctor (UK) Ltd
A newspaper ad for a brand of honey was banned for implying that it could be used as a treatment for coughs and for implying that its “anti-microbial” properties could treat diseases.
-
Lidl Great Britain Ltd
Two leaflets, a website, and two newspaper ads for Lidl products were banned for quoting unsubstantiated RRP claims.
-
Easylife Group Ltd t/a Easylife Group, Positive Health
A brochure ad for a skin product was banned for implying that it was effective at removing the appearance of wrinkles and removing skin tags, without adequate evidence.
-
SCA Investments Ltd t/a Gousto
A website ad for the meal subscription service Gousto misleadingly stated that their packaging was 100% plastic free and misleadingly stated that it was 100% recyclable.
-
Easylife Group Ltd t/a Easylife Group, Positive Health
An ad in a national newspaper made misleading and unsubstantiated claims that a reusable face mask would protect the wearer from COVID-19 and that copper-infused fibres in the mask would kill particles of COVID-19.
-
360 Health Ltd t/a London Vaccination Centre
A direct email from a vaccination clinic was banned for implying that a positive COVID-19 antibody test would show that people were immune to the disease.
-
Solihull Health Check Clinic
A website ad for a health clinic was banned for stating that a COVID-19 antibody test was 100% accurate and for implying that a positive result would show that people were immune to the disease.
-
XMedical Ltd t/a Corona Test Centre
A paid-for Facebook ad and a website post for a COVID-19 test site were banned for implying that a positive antibody test would show that people were immune to the disease.
-
Marlow Foods Ltd t/a Quorn Foods
A TV ad for a Quorn product was banned for misleadingly implying that it helped reduce consumers’ carbon footprint.
-
Pheka Agency Co Ltd
A jewellery company’s Facebook ad was banned for stating a necklace could provide protection from electromagnetic radiation without holding adequate proof to back up the claim.
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 (31)