-
Tecnología Sostenible y Responsable SL (TSR) t/a Sustainable and Responsible Technology SL
A paid-for X ad made misleading claims about the effect of blue light on eyes.
-
Lark Holdings Limited
A website misleadingly claimed that a programme could permanently eliminate an array of mental health disorders and discouraged essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought.
-
GKOnlineCo Pty Ltd t/a Pups Den, Official Aida Store
A paid-for social media ad made medicinal claims about an unlicenced product.
-
Hismile Pty Ltd
Two paid-for TikTok and Instagram ads misleadingly implied that a colour correcting product was effective for whitening teeth immediately.
-
XC Trains Ltd t/a Cross Country Trains
A webpage made misleading claims about the availability of complimentary food and drink for First Class passengers on Cross Country Trains.
-
infirst Ltd t/a Flarin
A TV ad misleadingly implied that Flarin was better for treating joint pain than other ibuprofen products.
-
Vytaliving Ltd
A press ad 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
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.
-
OneCompress
Two paid-for Facebook ads for bamboo gloves and socks made medical claims for unlicensed products.
-
Vir Health Ltd t/a Numan
A TV ad for a hair loss treatment guaranteed the efficacy of the product, breaking the Code.
-
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”.
-
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.
-
Lynne McTaggart
Two marketing emails and a website made misleading claims about alternative medicine treating medical conditions, and discouraged people seeking essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought.
-
Medi Supplies Ltd
A website made two pricing claims that were misleading and could not be substantiated.
-
EFL Digital Ltd t/a EFL
Two online calendar events for The English Football League (EFL) and Papa John’s: a. The first calendar event, seen on 21 October 2022, featured the headline “[football emoji] Papa Johns Trophy: Stevenage vs Tottenham Hotspur U21”. Text within the event stated “We’ve partnered with Papa...
-
Get A Drip Ltd
The Get A Drip website www.getadrip.co.uk, seen 7 February 2019, listed the intravenous (IV) drip services it offered on a page headed “Our Menu”: “Bolt-Ons”; “Basic Hydration”; “MultiVit Drip”; “Energy Drip”; “Immunity Drip”; Detox Drip”; &l...
-
Kentucky Fried Chicken (Great Britain) Ltd t/a KFC
An email and two outdoor poster ads for KFC, seen in October and November 2023: a. The email included an image with text that stated “FINALLY F CKIN’ GOOD”. The letters between the “F” and “CKIN’” were covered by chips. Text underneath stated "NOT-SO HUMBLE BRAG. ...
-
REVIV UK Ltd t/a REVIV
The website for REVIV UK, www.revivme.com/london, seen 1 April 2019, stated on the main page for its London clinic “REVIV IV infusion therapies deliver hydration, vitamins, and antioxidants helping to optimise vital hydration balance and maximise your wellness & efficiency. Whether looking to boost your immun...
-
South African Foods Ltd t/a Candy Store 4 You
A TikTok post on Saira Hayati’s account for sea salt made health and nutrition claims that were in breach of the rules and claimed to prevent, treat or cure human disease, which broke the rules.
-
Kollo Health Ltd
A paid-for Facebook ad for liquid collagen claimed it could reduce wrinkles and cause thicker hair, which could not be substantiated, and made specific health claims which had not been authorised on the GB Register.
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 (47)