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 (5)

Hutchison 3G UK Ltd t/a 3
- Upheld
- Search (paid), Internet (on own site), Television
- 24 February 2021
A TV, website and paid-for search ad by Three Mobile were banned for not holding adequate substantiation to support the claim that they were the ‘best network for data.”
Telefonica UK Ltd t/a O2
- Upheld
- National newspaper (paid ad), Television
- 24 February 2021
A TV and newspaper ad for O2 which claimed it was the “UK’s No.1 Network” was found to be misleading because the comparisons it made with competitors were not clear.
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.
HardDisk Direct Ltd
- Upheld
- Internet (website content)
- 03 February 2021
A website ad for an IT hardware retailer was banned for containing misleading scores from a third-party review website.
PLR Worldwide Sales Ltd t/a Playrix
- Upheld
- Internet (social networking)
- 30 September 2020
Two paid-for Facebook ads for gaming apps were banned for misleadingly representing the games they were purported to feature.

Informally resolved (0)

Mail order cases (0)

Database cases (0)