Rulings (26)
  • Microlyscs LLC t/a The Crazy Cap

    • Upheld
    • Social media (own site)
    • 20 January 2021

    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

    • Upheld
    • National newspaper (ad feature)
    • 06 January 2021

    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

    • Upheld
    • Internet (on own site), National press, Leaflet
    • 16 December 2020

    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

    • Upheld
    • 02 December 2020

    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

    • Upheld
    • 02 December 2020

    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

    • Upheld
    • Newspaper
    • 11 November 2020

    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

    • Upheld
    • Email
    • 14 October 2020

    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

    • Upheld
    • Internet (on own site)
    • 14 October 2020

    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

    • Upheld
    • Internet (social networking), Website (own site)
    • 14 October 2020

    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

    • Upheld
    • Television
    • 30 September 2020

    A TV ad for a Quorn product was banned for misleadingly implying that it helped reduce consumers’ carbon footprint.

  • Pheka Agency Co Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 12 August 2020

    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.

  • The Regenerative Clinic Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Newspaper
    • 05 August 2020

    A newspaper ad for joint pain treatment was banned for implying that the treatment permanently relieved discomfort associated with arthritis.

  • Procter & Gamble (Health & Beauty Care) Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Poster, Transport
    • 08 July 2020

    A poster advertising nasal spray made misleading claims about its effectiveness against eliminating cold symptoms.

  • Not Guilty Food Co Ltd t/a The Skinny Food Co

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site), Social media (own site)
    • 27 May 2020

    A paid social media ad and a website for Skinny Sauce products made nutrition claims that implied they were calorie-free or energy free when they did not meet the conditions of use for the claims.

  • Revival Drinks Ltd t/a Revival Shots

    • Upheld
    • Social media (own site)
    • 27 May 2020

    A Facebook ad and two Instagram ads for Revival Shots broke the ad rules by implying that their food product could prevent, treat or cure human disease and for making health claims that were not listed as authorised on the EU Register of nutrition and health claims.

  • Chuckling Goat Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Transport, Website (own site)
    • 13 May 2020

    A poster ad and website claims by a food provider broke the rules by implying its products prevented, treated or cured human disease.

  • Mizkan Euro Ltd t/a Branston

    • Not upheld
    • Poster
    • 13 May 2020

    A poster ad for vinegar did not condone or encourage poor nutritional habits or an unhealthy lifestyle in children.

  • PCK SKIN (Manchester) Ltd t/a SkinSpaceUK

    • Upheld
    • Email
    • 13 May 2020

    A promotional email, by an aesthetic clinic, offering vitamin injections broke the rules by promoting prescription-only medicines to the general public.

  • Iceland Foods Ltd t/a Iceland

    • Not upheld
    • National press
    • 29 April 2020

    A national press ad for a supermarket did not make a misleading price comparison.

  • Cosmetic Medical Advice UK Ltd t/a Dr Rita Rakus Clinic

    • Upheld
    • Internet (social networking)
    • 22 April 2020

    Instagram posts that implied an IV drip treatment could help to prevent people from catching coronavirus/COVID-19 broke the advertising rules.