-
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.
-
John Mills Ltd t/a JML Direct
A TV ad featured a testimonial which misleadingly implied a heated drying pod could prevent condensation form forming.
-
Mous Products Ltd
A TV ad made misleading claims about the efficacy of a range of phone cases.
-
Nationwide Building Society t/a Nationwide
TV, radio and press ads for Nationwide were misleading as consumers were likely to understand that the building society had made a long-term decision not to close their branches and that they had not recently closed any branches when this was not the case.
-
Sparks Information PTE Ltd t/a Hunting Sniper
A paid-for Facebook ad for Hunting Sniper, a mobile app game, featured realistic footage of harm to animals, which was likely to cause widespread offence and unjustified distress.
-
John Mills Ltd t/a JML Direct
A TV ad for a cleaning tool presented gender stereotypes in a way that was likely to cause harm.
-
DUSK (Retail) Ltd
A TV ad was not likely to cause serious or widespread offence over its portrayal of men.
-
LeoVegas Gaming plc t/a Bet MGM
A TV ad for Bet MGM featuring Chris Rock was not likely to be of strong appeal to under-18s.
-
Jumpman Gaming Ltd t/a Lights Camera Bingo
A TV ad for Lucky Cow Bingo did not feature content that was likely to be of strong appeal to under-18s.
-
LeoVegas Gaming plc t/a BetUK
A radio ad for BetUK featuring Adebayo Akinfenwa was likely to be of strong appeal to under-18s.
-
Vir Health Ltd t/a Numan
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
A Video on Demand ad for an electric car featured misleading claims about charging time and mileage.
-
DUSK (Retail) Ltd
A TV ad did not irresponsibly imply that drinking alcohol had therapeutic qualities and could be used to cope with parenthood.
-
Ford Motor Company Ltd t/a Ford
A paid-for Google ad did not mislead when claiming a car had ‘zero emissions driving’.
-
BMW (UK) Ltd
A paid-for Google ad misleadingly represented a vehicle’s environmental impact.
-
Greater London Authority
A radio ad about the ULEZ expansion misleadingly claimed that one of the most polluted places in London is inside people’s cars.
-
MG Motor UK Ltd
A paid-for Google ad misleadingly represented a vehicle’s environmental impact.
-
Transport For London t/a TFL
A TV ad, radio ads and a press ad for Transport for London’s Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) expansion contained some misleading claims about reductions in levels of nitrous oxide in central London.
-
Gamehaus Network Technology Co Ltd
An in-app ad for a mobile game featuring an incestuous relationship, suggesting a child had been sexualised and groomed by an adult and portraying a child in a sexual way was likely to cause serious and widespread offence.
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 (79)