Rulings (18)
  • Copper Clothing Ltd t/a Copper Clothing

    • Upheld
    • Radio
    • 13 October 2021

    A radio ad for a facemask was banned for misleadingly implying that it could rapidly de-activate COVID-19 particles.

  • Kiddies Kingdom Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content)
    • 13 October 2021

    A website ad for children’s clothes and products were banned for making misleading savings claims.

  • Kinetique Ltd t/a Ethica Diamonds

    • Internet (website content)
    • 06 October 2021

    A website ad for diamonds was banned for not making clear that the products were made of substitute materials and were not laboratory-grown diamonds.

  • Prettylittlething.com Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (own site)
    • 01 September 2021

    We banned a promotion on Pretty Little Thing’s Instagram for not being fairly administered.

  • Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board t/a AHDB

    • Not upheld
    • Social media (paid ad), Television, VOD
    • 18 August 2021

    We did not uphold complaints regarding ads encouraging meat consumption.

  • Noble Foods Ltd

    • Not upheld
    • Internet (website content)
    • 11 August 2021

    A website post about the condition of chickens for farms which supply eggs did not break the CAP Code.

  • Engage Clothing Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
    • 21 July 2021

    An Instagram Story from Carl J Woods was banned for non-disclosure

  • Person(s) unknown t/a KaiAviation

    • Upheld
    • Magazine (paid ad)
    • 23 June 2021

    A magazine ad for a clothing company was banned for being likely to cause serious or widespread offence by objectifying women.

  • Max Mara Fashion Group Srl

    • Upheld
    • Magazine (paid ad)
    • 05 May 2021

    A magazine ad for a clothing retailer was banned for including a model who appeared unhealthily thin.

  • Justyouroutfit.com Ltd t/a Just Your Outfit

    • Upheld
    • Internet (on own site)
    • 21 April 2021

    Three website listings for clothing products were banned for misleadingly implying that they contained exclusively faux fur with no real animal fur.

  • Babyboo Fashion Pty Ltd t/a Babyboo Fashion

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 14 April 2021

    A paid-for Instagram post by an online clothing retailer was banned for being likely to cause serious or widespread offence by objectifying women.

  • Prettylittlething.com Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Internet (social networking)
    • 07 April 2021

    A TikTok post by influencers promoting a fashion brand broke the CAP Code as it was not obviously identifiable as an ad.

  • UAB Commerce Core t/a FitsWatch

    • Upheld
    • Internet (video)
    • 07 April 2021

    A paid-for YouTube ad for a smart watch was banned for showing an Apple Watch to promote a different product. We referred the matter to CAP’s Compliance team.

  • Genus UK Ltd t/a Select Fashion

    • Upheld
    • Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
    • 31 March 2021

    Two Instagram posts by two influencers promoting a fashion company broke the CAP code as they were not obviously identifiable as ads.

  • Watches of Switzerland Company Ltd t/a Goldsmiths

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 17 March 2021

    A website post by a jewellery retailer was banned for making misleading savings claims about a pair of earrings.

  • Dalradian Gold Ltd

    • Upheld
    • 10 March 2021

    A newspaper ad for a gold mining construction project was banned for misleadingly implying that materials extracted from the proposed mine would be used in the renewable energy industry.

  • Boohoo.com UK Ltd in association with Luke Mabbott

    • Upheld
    • Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
    • 10 February 2021

    A TikTok post by an influencer promoting the fashion retailer Boohoo breached the CAP Code as it was not obviously identifiable as an ad.

  • In The Style Fashion Ltd t/a In the Style

    • Upheld
    • Internet
    • 06 January 2021

    A website and Instagram post by an online fashion retailer were banned for implying that all their products were included in an offer when this was not actually the case.