-
Mous Products Ltd
A TV ad made misleading claims about the efficacy of a range of phone cases.
-
Worldwide Trademarks sro t/a Worldwide Trademarks
A direct mailing was not obviously identifiable as an ad, and misleadingly had the appearance of an invoice.
-
6G Internet Ltd t/a 6Gi
A leaflet for a home broadband provider made misleading claims about providing full fibre broadband.
-
Lenovo Technology (UK) Ltd
An email contained the misleading claim “Get 10% off any product”.
-
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.
-
Outsourceful Ltd t/a Outsourceful
An email and website for a recruitment agency perpetuated harmful racial stereotypes and were likely to cause serious offence.
-
Planet Computers Ltd
A website misleadingly stated when a smartphone would be in stock.
-
Zzoomm plc
A direct mailing misleadingly stated the savings someone could make with their broadband service.
-
Eurostar International Ltd
A promotional email that advertised trips for £39 was misleading for not having enough tickets at that price point.
-
Virgin Media Ltd t/a Virgin Media
A website claiming that the provider offered "the fastest WiFi Guarantee of any major provider" was misleading.
-
Polyverse Inc
An in-game mobile app ad was irresponsible, likely to cause serious and widespread offence and had been irresponsibly targeted for overly sexualising and objectifying women.
-
Codeway Dijital Hizmetler Anonim Sirketi t/a Codeway
A paid-for Instagram ad misleadingly exaggerated the capabilities of an AI photo-editing app.
-
Prettylittlething.com Ltd t/a Prettylittlething.com
An email ad failed to administer a pricing promotion via a discount code fairly.
-
AOS Trading Ltd t/a Rattan Hut
An email, website, and paid-for Instagram story for a garden furniture retailer misleadingly claimed that items were free despite consumers having to meet a minimum order value to use the voucher codes.
-
EE Ltd t/a EE
Ads for EE did not provide sufficient information for consumers to verify comparisons with identifiable competitors and inadequately signposted consumers to such information.
-
6G Internet Ltd
A leaflet and a website for a broadband provider misleadingly implied that a sixth-generation mobile network existed and was able to be used by consumers.
-
BBC Studios Productions Ltd t/a BBC Studios
Four pages on the BBC and Ticketmaster websites, and an email from Ticketmaster, misleadingly omitted that tickets for the Coronation Concert would be allocated on a first-come first-served basis and implied that consumers had been allocated tickets.
-
Sky UK Ltd
The website for Sky Business broadband made savings claims that were not available to all consumers and misleading price comparisons.
-
Red Miracle Group t/a Domino’s Pizza
A promotion offered in a leaflet for Domino’s Pizza was not administered fairly and was likely to have caused participants unnecessary disappointment.
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 (25)