-
YO! Sushi UK Ltd t/a YO!
A paid-for Instagram post for YO! Sushi broke the rules by featuring an identifiable specific less healthy food product.
-
Costcutter Supermarkets Group Ltd t/a Costcutter and Mondelez Europe Services GmbH – UK branch t/a Cadbury (Mondelez)
A webpage for Costcutter and Cadburys broke the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy food product. Another ad was investigated but it didn’t break our rules.
-
Innate-Essence Ltd t/a the Turmeric Co.
A website for a turmeric shot company made claims that a food could prevent, treat or cure human disease.
-
Bolt Healthcare Ltd t/a Bolt Pharmacy
Two paid-for Facebook ads for an online pharmacy failed to make their commercial intent clear and falsely implied they were acting for purposes outside their trade by presenting websites used for advertising purposes as independent review sites. They also promoted weight loss prescription-only ...
-
Bolt Healthcare Ltd t/a Bolt Pharmacy
Two paid-for Facebook ads for an online pharmacy promoted weight loss prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.
-
Bubbleology UK-I Ltd t/a Bubbleology
A paid-for Instagram ad for a bubble tea company didn’t break the less healthy food rules because it was a small and medium-sized enterprise and was therefore exempt.
-
Domino's Pizza UK & Ireland Ltd t/a Domino's
A TV ad, Video on Demand ad and a YouTube ad for Domino’s broke the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy food product.
-
Higham Miller Coffee Ltd t/a Exhale Healthy Coffee
A paid-for Instagram ad for a coffee company made unauthorised health and nutrition claims and included health claims that referred to the recommendation of an individual health professional.
-
McDonald's Restaurants Ltd t/a McDonald's
A TV ad for McDonalds didn’t break the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy product.
-
Kind Patches Ltd
A paid-for Facebook ad for a supplement company made claims that a supplement patch could help with weight-loss and made medicinal claims for products that weren’t authorised by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). The ad was also socially irresponsible and incl...
-
Phlo Technologies Ltd
A paid-for Facebook ad promoted weight-loss prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.
-
Domino's Pizza UK & Ireland Ltd t/a Domino's
Two paid-for social media ads for Domino’s pizza didn’t break the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy product.
-
Kentucky Fried Chicken (Great Britain) Ltd t/a KFC
A TV ad, Video on Demand and three paid-for social media ads for KFC didn’t break the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy product.
-
Mars Wrigley Confectionery UK Ltd t/a Mars
A paid-for Instagram ad for M&M’s broke the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy food product through the inclusion of a character that depicted a specific less healthy food product.
-
Papa John's (GB) Ltd t/a Papa Johns
A paid for Facebook ad for Papa John’s didn’t break the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy product.
-
S&E1 Ltd t/a Morley's Woking
A paid-for Instagram ad for Morley’s broke the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy food product.
-
Uber Eats UK Ltd t/a Uber Eats
A Video on Demand pause ad for Uber Eats didn’t break the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy product.
-
Express Healthcare Ltd t/a pharmacyonline.co.uk
A paid-for Meta ad and website for an online pharmacy promoted prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.
-
Patisserie Valerie Production Ltd t/a Patisserie Valerie
Three paid-for Google search ads for Patisserie Valerie didn’t break the less healthy food rules as they were a small or medium sized enterprise and therefore were exempt from the restrictions.
-
The Clean Supps LLC t/a Inno Supps
Four paid-for Meta ads promoting supplements made claims that a food supplement could prevent, treat or cure human diseases or conditions, made unauthorised health claims and made claims that referred to a rate or amount of weight loss for food supplements. The ad also used ...
Rulings
Our rulings are published every Wednesday and set out on the public record how, following a formal 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 agree to amend or withdraw their ad without being subject to a formal ruling.
Rulings (66)