-
Asos.com Ltd
An in-app ad for a clothing company, was not irresponsible and did not promote an unhealthy body image.
-
Chequp Health Ltd
A paid-for Meta ad for weight-loss treatments promoted prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.
-
Express Healthcare Ltd t/a pharmacyonline.co.uk
A paid-for Google search ad for obesity treatment jabs promoted prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.
-
Hexpress Healthcare Ltd t/a HealthExpress.co.uk
A paid-for Meta ad for weight-loss injections promoted prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.
-
Juniper Technologies UK Ltd
A paid-for Google search ad for weight-loss injections promoted prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.
-
PharmaRx Ltd t/a Cloud Pharmacy
A paid-for Meta ad for weight-loss treatments promoted prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.
-
Phlo Technologies Ltd t/a Phlo Clinic
A paid-for Google search ad for weight-loss treatments promoted prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.
-
Phlo Technologies Ltd t/a Phlo Clinic
A paid-for Google search ad for weight-loss injections promoted prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.
-
SemaPen Ltd
A paid-for Google ad for a weight-loss pen program promoted prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.
-
Yazen Health AB t/a Yazen
An Instagram post by Gemma Collins promoting a weight-loss app and medication advertised prescription-only medicines to the public, against the law and our rules.
-
Bodystreet Franchise (UK) Ltd t/a Bodystreet
A website made unsubstantiated claims that 20 minutes of exercise at their studio was enough for a week, that Electro Muscle Stimulation (EMS) training would lead to a reduction in body fat in a short time and that they were Europe's leading provider of EMS training.
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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 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.
-
John Mills Ltd t/a JML Direct
A TV ad made unsubstantiated claims about the efficacy of a shapewear product.
-
Next Retail Ltd t/a NEXT
A product listing on the NEXT website irresponsibly portrayed a model as being unhealthily thin.
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 (28)