Rulings (166)
  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • WaterWipes UC

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 29 June 2022

    A paid-for Facebook ad for wipes was banned because ‘world’s purest wipes’ was found to be a misleading and unverifiable claim.

  • OPTILASE (UK) LIMITED

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site), Internet (sponsored search)
    • 22 June 2022

    An online promotion for laser eye surgery was found to be misleading and irresponsible.

  • Person(s) unknown

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site), Internet (sponsored search)
    • 22 June 2022

    We banned an online ad for a company claiming to be able to treat depression and other medical conditions, over unsubstantiated claims over treatments’ efficacy.

  • First Trenitalia West Coast Rail Ltd t/a Avanti West Coast

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content)
    • 15 June 2022

    A website for a train company made misleading claims that its ticket prices could not be beaten.

  • IMC Toys UK Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content)
    • 15 June 2022

    A banner ad was unlikely to be obviously identifiable as such by its audience, young children, and therefore ‘enhanced’ disclosure was required.

  • IMC Toys UK Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content)
    • 15 June 2022

    A banner ad was unlikely to be obviously identifiable as such by its audience, young children, and therefore ‘enhanced’ disclosure was required.

  • PPB Counterparty Services Ltd t/a Paddy Power

    • Not upheld
    • Radio
    • 15 June 2022

    A radio ad for a bookmaker did not break rules on harm and offence with regards to references to emigration and sporting rivalries.

  • Take Stock Foods Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 15 June 2022

    A paid-for TikTok post for a soup company broke the rules by claiming that its food products could treat or cure acne.

  • Ten Percent Music Elite Group Ltd t/a TPM the Label

    • Upheld
    • Social media (own site)
    • 15 June 2022

    An Instagram post promoting a prize draw did not award prizes as described and was not administered fairly.

  • Trailfinders Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Brochure
    • 15 June 2022

    A holiday brochure was misleading because it did not make it sufficiently clear that special offers on free nights and free room upgrades were subject to restrictions. 

  • U K Insurance Ltd t/a Churchill

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content)
    • 15 June 2022

    A banner ad was unlikely to be obviously identifiable as such by its audience - young children, and therefore ‘enhanced’ disclosure was required.

  • Evergreens (UK) Ltd t/a ArtificialGrass.com

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content), Internet (video)
    • 08 June 2022

    A website and two YouTube video ads for artificial grass were misleading as they overstated the environmental benefits and air purifying qualities of the products. 

  • J Sainsbury plc t/a Sainsbury's

    • Not upheld
    • Television, Radio
    • 08 June 2022

    A radio and TV ad for Sainsbury which promoted the general benefits to the environment of reducing meat protein in substitution for plant protein were not misleading. 

  • Partex Global GmbH

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content)
    • 08 June 2022

    A website for auto parts omitted material information about the advertiser’s geographical location and misleadingly implied that the advertiser was based in the UK, when that was not the case.

  • Sky UK Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Poster, Television
    • 08 June 2022

    A TV and a poster ad for Sky Mobile was likely to mislead because Sky UK Ltd did not provide objective comparative evidence to substantiate its claim that it was the perfect network.

  • Tesco Stores Ltd t/a Tesco

    • Upheld
    • Television, Newspaper, VOD, Radio
    • 08 June 2022

    A cross-media ad (TV, radio, Twitter, press, VOD, website) by Tesco made misleading claims that Plant Chef products could make a positive environmental difference to the planet compared to their meat equivalents.