-
Viva!
A cinema ad for the vegan charity Viva!, featuring scenes of a human baby being taken from its mother and equating that with dairy calves being separated from their mothers, was irresponsible, distressing and likely to cause serious and widespread offence, particularly for viewers with experience of child los...
-
Glamour Shots
A paid-for Google search ad for eBay was irresponsible and likely to cause serious offence by objectifying and sexualising women.
-
Cosmos Oyun Yazilim Sanayi Ticaret Ltd Sirketi t/a Filter AI
An in-game ad was socially irresponsible and caused serious offence, including by featuring a harmful gender stereotype that objectified women.
-
Wuxi Zhan'ao E-commerce Co Ltd t/a Lpows.com
A paid-for YouTube ad featured a gender stereotype that was likely to cause harm or serious offence.
-
HOMA Games SAS
An in-game ad was socially irresponsible and caused serious or widespread offence, including by featuring a harmful stereotype by objectifying women.
-
Honeytech Ltd t/a Honeytoon
Two paid-for X ads were socially irresponsible, featured harmful gender stereotypes and caused serious or widespread offence, including referencing incest, featuring scenes that depicted women as objects of sexual gratification and trivialising sexual assault.
-
Koi Footwear Ltd
An email was socially irresponsible and likely to cause serious and widespread offence by condoning drug use.
-
Diesel SpA t/a Diesel
A paid-for ad featuring Katie Price was irresponsible and likely to cause serious offence by objectifying and sexualising women.
-
air up GmbH
A paid-for TikTok ad was irresponsible and likely to cause serious or widespread offense.
-
GreenPixel Ltd t/a Hotel Merge Empire
An in-game ad was likely to cause serious or widespread offence, including by condoning domestic violence.
-
Cloud Whale Interactive Technology
An in-game ad was socially irresponsible, likely to cause serious or widespread offence and was irresponsibly targeted
-
Whaleco UK Ltd t/a Temu
An in-game ad was likely to cause serious or widespread offence.
-
Belle Baby Ltd
A website, which featured a product listing for a swimsuit, included an image of a child portrayed in a sexual way.
-
Person(s) Unknown t/a Henry’s Boots
A paid-for Facebook ad and website made misleading claims including that their products were handmade and that they were closing down and also failed to include the geographical address from which they operated.
-
Person(s) unknown t/a Luxelle-London
Two paid-for Facebook ads and a website misleadingly implied they were a UK-based company and failed to include the geographical address from which they operated.
-
Person(s) unknown t/a Muse
A website misleadingly implied they were a UK-based company and failed to include the geographical address from which they operated.
-
Person(s) unknown t/a Velora London
A paid-for Facebook ad and website made misleading claims including about where the business was based, materials used to make products, delivery times and money-back guarantees and also failed to include the geographical address from which they operated.
-
Person(s) unknown t/a Rosely London
A paid-for Facebook ad and website made misleading claims including about the materials used to make products and money-back guarantees and also failed to include the geographical address from which they operated.
-
John Mills Ltd t/a JML Direct
A TV ad made unsubstantiated claims about the efficacy of a shapewear product.
-
Shenzhenshi Senyi Dianzi Shangwu Youxiangongsi t/a Plum-Marketing
An Amazon product listing was socially irresponsible as it condoned an unsafe practice and featured very young children playing with a toy that was likely to cause them physical harm.
Rulings
Our rulings are published every Wednesday and set out on the public record how, following a formal 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 agree to amend or withdraw their ad without being subject to a formal ruling.
Rulings (35)