-
ARSJ Holding Ltd
We upheld complaints against health claims in an ad for Brite Drinks.
-
Brand Evangelists for Beauty Ltd
We banned an ad for making claims about a caffeinated hair product that couldn’t be substantiated.
-
Lucy Isabella Beauty & Aesthetics t/a Lucy Isabella
We banned an ad for advertising Kenalog, a prescription-only medicine, to the public.
-
PEL Consultancy Services Ltd t/a PEL Investigations
We banned an ad for a private investigation agency for having unsubstantiated claims.
-
Sarean Aesthetics
We banned ads for advertising prescription-only medicine to the public.
-
Skincodes Aesthetics
We banned ads for marketing prescription-only medicine to the public.
-
Tesco Mobile Ltd t/a Tesco Mobile
We banned ads for replacing expletives with food terms.
-
The Skin Clinic Faversham t/a The Skin Clinic
We banned ads for marketing prescription-only medicine to the public.
-
UAB Ekomlita t/a nuubu
We partly upheld complaints against ads for kitchen knives.
-
Adidas UK Ltd t/a Adidas
We upheld complaints against ads containing nudity.
-
American Golf (Trading) Ltd t/a Onlinegolf
A website of an online golf retailer misled consumers by omitting significant information about a free trial for a shot tracking device because it did not make clear they would have to pay a subscription to access the data provided by the device
-
Arsenal Football Club plc
[Republished ruling] A Facebook post and website post by Arsenal Football Club promoting fan tokens were misleading because they did not make sufficiently clear that the value of investments in paid-for Fan Tokens was variable and as cryptoassets they were unregulated; omitted material information, including that free ...
-
BetterHelp, Inc t/a BetterHelp.com
A paid-for ad on Facebook for an online counselling and therapy provider made misleading and irresponsible claims about NHS waiting times and discouraged people with mental health conditions from seeking support from the NHS
-
Boux Avenue Ltd
A post on the company’s Facebook page was irresponsible and likely to cause serious or widespread offence by objectifying women
-
Hims & Hers UK Ltd t/a Hims
Two ads on the company’s website were banned for promoting prescription-only medicine to the public and promoting unlicensed medicines.Two ads on the company’s website were banned for promoting prescription-only medicine to the public and promoting unlicensed medicines.
-
Huel Ltd
A podcast ad was banned as the commercial intent behind it was not made clear upfront and it was not obviously identifiable as an ad
-
ITAE Productions Ltd t/a The VIVIT Experience ; VIVIT
An email for a Father’s Day promotion that featured a picture Fred West was banned for being likely to cause serious or widespread offence and distress
-
Lebara Mobile Ltd t/a Lebara Ltd
Claims on the company’s website for its 30-day SIM-only plans were misleading because the “unlimited” minutes and text services were subject to a cap on usage
-
Person(s) unknown
A paid-for Facebook ad for corset-style shapewear was irresponsible by exploiting people’s insecurities around body image, particularly new mothers, and encouraging rapid post-partum weight loss; misleadingly implied that the product could cause permanent shape change; and, made unsubstantiated claims about burni...
-
Prettylittlething.com Ltd t/a Prettylittlething.com
Images on a fast-fashion retailer’s website featuring Alabama Barker were socially irresponsible and likely to cause harm and offence by depicting an under 18 in a sexual manner
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 (243)