Rulings (34)
  • Glamour Shots

    • Upheld
    • Search (paid)
    • 09 July 2025

    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

    • Upheld
    • In-game (apps)
    • 02 July 2025

    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

    • Upheld
    • Website (paid ad)
    • 02 July 2025

    A paid-for YouTube ad featured a gender stereotype that was likely to cause harm or serious offence.

  • HOMA Games SAS

    • Upheld
    • 25 June 2025

    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

    • Upheld
    • 25 June 2025

    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

    • Upheld
    • Email
    • 18 June 2025

    An email was socially irresponsible and likely to cause serious and widespread offence by condoning drug use.

  • Diesel SpA t/a Diesel

    • Upheld in part
    • Website (paid ad)
    • 11 June 2025

    A paid-for ad featuring Katie Price was irresponsible and likely to cause serious offence by objectifying and sexualising women.

  • air up GmbH

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 28 May 2025

    A paid-for TikTok ad was irresponsible and likely to cause serious or widespread offense.

  • GreenPixel Ltd t/a Hotel Merge Empire

    • Upheld
    • Game (mobile/app)
    • 21 May 2025

    An in-game ad was likely to cause serious or widespread offence, including by condoning domestic violence.

  • Cloud Whale Interactive Technology

    • Upheld
    • In-game (apps)
    • 07 May 2025

    An in-game ad was socially irresponsible, likely to cause serious or widespread offence and was irresponsibly targeted

  • Whaleco UK Ltd t/a Temu

    • Upheld
    • In-game (apps)
    • 07 May 2025

    An in-game ad was likely to cause serious or widespread offence.

  • Belle Baby Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 09 April 2025

    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

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 09 April 2025

    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 Rosely London

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 09 April 2025

    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.

  • Person(s) unknown t/a Velora London

    • Upheld
    • App (paid ad)
    • 09 April 2025

    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 Luxelle-London

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad), Website (own site)
    • 09 April 2025

    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

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content)
    • 09 April 2025

    A website misleadingly implied they were a UK-based company and failed to include the geographical address from which they operated.

  • John Mills Ltd t/a JML Direct

    • Upheld
    • Television
    • 26 March 2025

    A TV ad made unsubstantiated claims about the efficacy of a shapewear product.

  • Shenzhenshi Senyi Dianzi Shangwu Youxiangongsi t/a Plum-Marketing

    • Upheld
    • Internet (classified)
    • 12 March 2025

    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. 

  • Next Retail Ltd t/a NEXT

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 12 February 2025

    A product listing on the NEXT website irresponsibly portrayed a model as being unhealthily thin.