Rulings (245)
  • ARSJ Holding Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Internet (on own site), Social media (paid ad)
    • 11 May 2022

    We upheld complaints against health claims in an ad for Brite Drinks.

  • Brand Evangelists for Beauty Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (own site)
    • 11 May 2022

    We banned an ad for making claims about a caffeinated hair product that couldn’t be substantiated.

  • Lucy Isabella Beauty & Aesthetics t/a Lucy Isabella

    • Upheld
    • Social media (own site)
    • 11 May 2022

    We banned an ad for advertising Kenalog, a prescription-only medicine, to the public.

  • PEL Consultancy Services Ltd t/a PEL Investigations

    • Upheld
    • Search (paid)
    • 11 May 2022

    We banned an ad for a private investigation agency for having unsubstantiated claims.

  • Sarean Aesthetics

    • Upheld
    • Social media (own site)
    • 11 May 2022

    We banned ads for advertising prescription-only medicine to the public.

  • Shop Direct Home Shopping Ltd t/a Very, very.co.uk, Littlewoods, littlewoods.com

    • Upheld
    • Radio
    • 11 May 2022

    This ruling replaces one from November 2021; however, we have continued to uphold the complaint.

  • Skincodes Aesthetics

    • Upheld
    • Social media (own site)
    • 11 May 2022

    We banned ads for marketing prescription-only medicine to the public.

  • Tesco Mobile Ltd t/a Tesco Mobile

    • Upheld in part
    • National newspaper (paid ad), Poster, Social media (paid ad)
    • 11 May 2022

    We banned ads for replacing expletives with food terms.

  • The Skin Clinic Faversham t/a The Skin Clinic

    • Upheld
    • Social media (own site)
    • 11 May 2022

    We banned ads for marketing prescription-only medicine to the public.

  • UAB Ekomlita t/a nuubu

    • Upheld
    • Internet (display)
    • 11 May 2022

    We partly upheld complaints against ads for kitchen knives.

  • Adidas UK Ltd t/a Adidas

    • Upheld
    • Poster, Social media (own site)
    • 11 May 2022

    We upheld complaints against ads containing nudity.

  • Elite Aesthetic Clinic Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (own site)
    • 03 August 2022

    Three ads on social media were banned for advertising Kenalog, a prescription-only treatment.

  • Fanatics (International) Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content)
    • 03 August 2022

    A website promotion was misleading because customers had not received the discount on the advertised product when using a promotional code.

  • FlexFuel-Energy Development

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content)
    • 03 August 2022

    An ad on the company’s website misleadingly implied that misleadingly implied that a hydrogen-injection treatment for engines could reduce carbon emissions without evidence.

  • Golden Leaves Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content)
    • 03 August 2022

    An ad on the company’s website misleadingly implied that their MDF coffins were more eco-friendly than other options, without sufficient evidence.

  • JC Atkinson & Son Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content)
    • 03 August 2022

    An ad on the company’s website misleadingly implied that their MDF coffins were more eco-friendly than other options, without sufficient evidence.

  • LC International Ltd t/a Coral

    • Upheld
    • Television
    • 03 August 2022

    A TV ad for Corals advertised gambling irresponsibly.

  • LifeSafe Technologies Ltd

    • Not upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 03 August 2022

    A paid-for Facebook ad for a fire extinguisher did not cause excessive fear or distress.

  • PCK SKIN (Manchester) Ltd t/a SkinSpaceUK

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content)
    • 03 August 2022

    An ad on the company’s website stated that treatment could eliminate dark circles around the eyes without sufficient evidence

  • PlanetArt UK Ltd t/a FreePrints

    • Upheld
    • App (own claim)
    • 03 August 2022

    An ad on the company’s app misleadingly told consumers they could get free photo prints, without mentioning postage charges.