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 (5)

Cambridge Corporate Consultants Ltd t/a The Claims Guide
- Upheld
- Social media (own site)
- 16 April 2025
An post on X by The Claims Guide misleadingly implied that their company was approved, endorsed or authorised by the UK Government.
Tesco Stores Ltd
- Not upheld
- Digital outdoor
- 12 February 2025
An outdoor digital poster comparing the Tesco Clubcard and Sainsbury’s Nectar loyalty card schemes wasn’t misleading.
Wenzhou Xinyu Maoyi Youxian Gongsi t/a XINYU TRADE
- Upheld
- Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
- 25 September 2024
Two Instagram stories on Mel Lloyd’s account featuring affiliate links weren't obviously identifiable as ads.
CPD Regulatory Office
- Upheld
- Internet
- 28 August 2024
A website made misleading claims about being affiliated with government bodies, misleading claims to have accreditation providers that met government-approved standards, and misleadingly using organisations’ names and logos to suggest an affiliation.
ZOE Ltd
- Upheld
- Social media (paid ad)
- 14 August 2024
A paid-for Facebook ad for Zoe featuring a testimonial from Steven Bartlett misleadingly omitted that he was an investor in the company.

Informally resolved (0)

Mail order cases (0)

Database cases (0)