-
International Footcare Ltd
We did not uphold complaints that an ad for a shoe was sexist.
-
Mondelez Europe Services GmbH
An ad for a limited edition beer was not banned.
-
Turner Broadcasting System Europe Ltd
A TV ad for life insurance was banned for inappropriate scheduling against children’s programming.
-
Cignpost Diagnostics Ltd
A newspaper ad for a PCR testing programme was banned for promoting behaviour that contradicted government advice on social distancing.
-
BMW (UK) Ltd
A radio ad for BMW was banned for demonstrating the power of a car in a way that suggested excitement and not in the clear context of safety.
-
Rustin and Mallory Wholesale Ltd
Two paid-for Facebook ads were banned as the models appeared to be unhealthily thin.
-
Au Vodka Ltd
Seven Instagram and a website post for a vodka company were banned for encouraging excessive drinking, for linking the consumption of alcohol with driving, and for featuring a rapper who under 25 years of age.
-
Person(s) unknown t/a KaiAviation
A magazine ad for a clothing company was banned for being likely to cause serious or widespread offence by objectifying women.
-
John Mills Ltd t/a JML Direct
A TV ad for a Hurricane Spin Scrubber was banned for suggesting that cleaning the home was a responsibility uniquely associated with women.
-
Nike (UK) Ltd
A TV ad, two VOD ads on All4 and ITV Hub, and a YouTube video for Nike which showed pregnant woman participating in sports were not found to be irresponsible and did not break the BCAP Code.
-
The Positive Birth Company Ltd
A website ad for a hypnobirthing course was banned for claiming to be the world’s most affordable hypnobirthing programme without holding adequate comparative evidence to substantiate the claim.
-
GOAT Company Ltd t/a Goat Games
A pre-roll ad on YouTube for an online game was banned for being likely to cause serious or widespread offence or harm by objectifying women.
-
SWAG MASHA LLC
An in-game ad for a dating simulation game, which appeared in an online property trading game, was banned for objectifying women and for presenting gender stereotypes in a way that was likely to cause harm.
-
Max Mara Fashion Group Srl
A magazine ad for a clothing retailer was banned for including a model who appeared unhealthily thin.
-
Babyboo Fashion Pty Ltd t/a Babyboo Fashion
A paid-for Instagram post by an online clothing retailer was banned for being likely to cause serious or widespread offence by objectifying women.
-
Gallaher Ltd t/a JTI UK
A video ad for a nicotine pouch product was banned for implying that nicotine pouches had mood-alerting or stimulant effects which made gaming more enjoyable.
-
Not Guilty Food Co Ltd t/a The Skinny Food Co
A Facebook post promoting spice mixes was banned as the product’s name implied that it could help consumers lose weight.
-
Geraint Christopher t/a Hemp in Avalon
A newspaper and Instagram post by a hemp shop were banned for inciting people to break the law by discouraging them from wearing face coverings in shops.
-
Rightmove Group Ltd t/a Rightmove
A TV ad did not depict gender stereotypes in a way that was likely to cause harm.
-
LC International Ltd t/a Gala Spins
A paid-for Facebook post by a gambling company was banned for being of particular appeal to children.
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 (20)