-
Beer52 Ltd
A letter from a beer company broke the CAP Code as it was not obviously identifiable as an ad.
-
DSG Retail Ltd t/a Currys PC World
Two TV ads for Currys PC World were banned for misleadingly implying that consumers were able to purchase a TV for half price when this was not the case.
-
Furosystems Ltd
A website post, a YouTube video, an Instagram post and two Facebook posts for an electric scooter manufacturer were banned for misleadingly and irresponsibly suggesting electric scooters could be used on public roads or pavements in the UK.
-
Haven Power Ltd
A website post by an electricity supplier did not make misleading environmental claims.
-
Hutchison 3G UK Ltd t/a 3
A TV, website and paid-for search ad by Three Mobile were banned for not holding adequate substantiation to support the claim that they were the ‘best network for data.”
-
Telefonica UK Ltd t/a O2
A TV and newspaper ad for O2 which claimed it was the “UK’s No.1 Network” was found to be misleading because the comparisons it made with competitors were not clear.
-
HiSmile Pty Ltd
A Snapchat story and a Facebook post promoting a teeth whitening company’s product were banned for misleadingly claiming their product had been clinically proven and for exaggerating its potential effects.
-
Noir Consulting Ltd
Three job ads on a recruitment company’s website were not found to be misleading.
-
Sky UK Ltd
A TV ad for Sky was banned for making misleading savings claims about a Sky TV and Broadband package.
-
Boohoo.com UK Ltd in association with Luke Mabbott
A TikTok post by an influencer promoting the fashion retailer Boohoo breached the CAP Code as it was not obviously identifiable as an ad.
-
The Detox Clinic Ltd
A website ad for a health clinic was banned for misleadingly stating that ozone therapy could successfully treat Covid-19 and for stating that colon hydrotherapy could treat IBS without holding sufficient evidence to support the claim.
-
GHN Merchant Services Ltd t/a Good Health Naturally
Three website posts promoting products which claimed to provide protection from electromagnet radiation were banned for not holding substantial evidence to support the claims.
-
HardDisk Direct Ltd
A website ad for an IT hardware retailer was banned for containing misleading scores from a third-party review website.
-
ITonlinelearning Ltd
Two ads on two job vacancy websites were banned for misleadingly implying that a genuine job was being advertised.
-
LC International Ltd t/a Ladbrokes
A video on demand ad for Ladbrokes which appeared on All4 was banned for depicting gambling behaviour that was socially irresponsible, as a person in the ad was shown to be detached from his surroundings after placing a bet.
-
Ryanair DAC
Two TV ads for Ryanair were banned for misleading viewers about the impact vaccines would have on their ability to travel abroad during Easter and summer. We also upheld complaints on the grounds of social responsibility.
-
Skinny Tan Ltd in association with Elly Norris
Two Instagram stories by an influencer promoting a beauty product were banned for applying a filter which misleadingly exaggerated the effect the product was capable of achieving.
-
We Are Luxe Ltd t/a TANOLOGIST TAN, in association with Cinzia Baylis-Zullo
An Instagram story by an influencer promoting a beauty product was banned for applying a filter which misleadingly exaggerated the effect the product was capable of achieving.
-
Fidelitas Group Ltd
Five paid-for internet search ads and a website ad for a debt advice service were banned for misleadingly suggesting their service was endorsed by Government bodies and for suggesting they were qualified to provide debt counselling despite not being authorised by the FCA as experts in this field.
-
LARQ
A paid-for Facebook post by a water bottle retailer was banned for implying that a bottle could kill all bacteria and viruses without holding substantial evidence to support the claim.
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 (153)