-
CityFibre Holdings Ltd
A direct mailing wasn't misleading.
-
Vodafone Ltd
Claims on Vodafone’s website which contained references to reliability and coverage failed to objectively compare one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative features.
-
Hutchison 3G UK Ltd t/a Three Mobile
A national press ad, two paid-for Meta ads and a website for Three Mobile didn’t make misleading ‘best value’ claims.
-
EE Ltd t/a EE
A TV, radio, paid-for social media and digital poster ad for EE made unsubstantiated claims about the performance and capabilities of a Wi-Fi router.
-
DeVosVoorzieningen BVBA t/a Qinux TitanPG
A pre-roll YouTube ad made unsubstantiated claims about the features and popularity of a smart watch.
-
British Telecommunications plc t/a BT
A webpage on the BT website didn’t make clear that their broadband contracts would be subject to mid-contract price increases.
-
EE Ltd t/a EE
A webpage on the EE website didn’t make clear that their broadband contracts would be subject to mid-contract price increases.
-
Plusnet plc
A webpage on the Plusnet plc website didn’t make clear that their broadband contracts would be subject to mid-contract price increases.
-
TalkTalk Telecom Ltd t/a TalkTalk
A webpage on the TalkTalk website didn’t make clear that their broadband contracts would be subject to mid-contract price increases.
-
Telefonica UK Ltd t/a O2
A webpage on the O2 website didn’t make clear that their broadband contracts would be subject to mid-contract price increase.
-
Virgin Media Ltd
A webpage on the Virgin Media website didn’t make clear that their broadband contracts would be subject to mid-contract price increases.
-
Vodafone Ltd
A TV ad, paid-for X ad and website for Vodafone made unsubstantiated claims that their broadband services provided a nearly identical performance to BT's services, and that millions of BT broadband customers had already switched, or were actively considering switching, to Vodafone.
-
Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd t/a Samsung
Topic: Computers, phones and telecoms