-
ARSJ Holding Ltd
We upheld complaints against health claims in an ad for Brite Drinks.
-
Brand Evangelists for Beauty Ltd
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
We banned an ad for a private investigation agency for having unsubstantiated claims.
-
Tesco Mobile Ltd t/a Tesco Mobile
We banned ads for replacing expletives with food terms.
-
WaterWipes UC
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
An online promotion for laser eye surgery was found to be misleading and irresponsible.
-
Person(s) unknown
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
A website for a train company made misleading claims that its ticket prices could not be beaten.
-
IMC Toys UK Ltd
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
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
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
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
An Instagram post promoting a prize draw did not award prizes as described and was not administered fairly.
-
Trailfinders Ltd
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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 (168)