Rulings (138)
  • Gallaher Ltd t/a JTI UK

    • Upheld in part
    • VOD
    • 14 April 2021

    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.

  • Missguided Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
    • 14 April 2021

    An Instagram post by influencer Zara McDermott promoting Missguided products was banned for not being obviously identifiable as an ad.

  • North Wests Competitions Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
    • 14 April 2021

    Two Instagram posts by an influencer promoting a free giveaway were banned for not being obviously identifiable as ads.

  • Not Guilty Food Co Ltd t/a The Skinny Food Co

    • Upheld
    • Social media (own site)
    • 14 April 2021

    A Facebook post promoting spice mixes was banned as the product’s name implied that it could help consumers lose weight.

  • Flexible Digital Solutions Ltd

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

    A paid-for Facebook ad and a website ad for a debt advice service were banned for exaggerating the speed and ease of the process, trivialising the application process and for not stating the risks and fees associated with IVAs.

  • Grey Technology Ltd t/a Gtech

    • Upheld in part
    • Newspaper, Internet (website content)
    • 07 April 2021

    Two newspaper ads and a website ad for a vacuum cleaner were banned for implying the product could completely eliminate dust clouds without holding adequate evidence to prove this.

  • Jetsun Sunbeds

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

    A Facebook post promoting sunbeds misleadingly and irresponsibly claimed that health benefits were obtained from the use of sunbeds.

  • 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.

  • TFLI Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Internet (social networking), Internet (website content)
    • 07 April 2021

    A paid-for Facebook ad and a website ad for a debt advice service were banned for exaggerating the speed and ease of the process, exaggerating the amount of debt that could be written off, as well as several other issues.

  • 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.

  • Vauxhall Motors Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Television
    • 07 April 2021

    A TV ad for the Vauxhall Corsa was not found to be misleading.

  • Campylite Investments Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content), Internet (video)
    • 31 March 2021

    A YouTube video and blog post for a building consultant were banned for denigrating one of their competitors by claiming they were scammers.

  • DNAfit Life Sciences Ltd t/a DNAfit

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

    A paid-for Instagram ad for a health and wellbeing company was banned for misleadingly implying they could provide consumers with effective personalised exercise and nutrition advice based on sequencing of their DNA that would result in improved health and fitness outcomes.

  • 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.

  • Person(s) unknown t/a equityreleaseplus.co.uk

    • Upheld
    • Internet (display)
    • 31 March 2021

    A paid-for website ad promoting an equity release company was banned for misleadingly implying their service was associated with Martin Lewis.

  • Coinfloor Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Regional press
    • 17 March 2021

    A press ad for a Bitcoin and cryptocurrency exchange was banned for irresponsibly suggesting that purchasing Bitcoin was a good or secure way to invest one’s savings or pension and for failing to make clear the risks associated with Bitcoin investments.

  • Team HARD Racing Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad), Website (paid ad)
    • 17 March 2021

    A paid-for Instagram post and a website post promoting a competition to win a car breached the CAP Code as it was administered unfairly.

  • 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.

  • Bio-Medical Research Ltd t/a Slendertone

    • Upheld
    • 10 March 2021

    A TV ad for a toning belt was banned for misleadingly implying that the product was able to affect the size of the waist by visibly firming and toning the abdominal muscles.

  • Camden Town Brewery Ltd

    • Upheld in part
    • 10 March 2021

    A TV ad for a brewery was banned for presenting a giveaway of free items in an unclear way that confused it with a prize draw. The same ad was not likely to appeal strongly to children.