-
XC Trains Ltd t/a Cross Country Trains
A webpage made misleading claims about the availability of complimentary food and drink for First Class passengers on Cross Country Trains.
-
infirst Ltd t/a Flarin
A TV ad misleadingly implied that Flarin was better for treating joint pain than other ibuprofen products.
-
The Sky Mining Company Ltd t/a Sky Mining
A press ad, Instagram ad and website did not make it clear that the company’s diamonds were synthetic, which was misleading.
-
John Mills Ltd t/a JML Direct
A TV ad featured a testimonial which misleadingly implied a heated drying pod could prevent condensation form forming.
-
Mous Products Ltd
A TV ad made misleading claims about the efficacy of a range of phone cases.
-
Nationwide Building Society t/a Nationwide
TV, radio and press ads for Nationwide were misleading as consumers were likely to understand that the building society had made a long-term decision not to close their branches and that they had not recently closed any branches when this was not the case.
-
Not Guilty Food Co Ltd t/a The Skinny Food Co
An Instagram Reel on Katie Price’s account was not obviously recognisable as an ad, irresponsibly promoted a diet that fell below 800 calories a day, and made weight loss claims for the products shown that aren’t authorised on the GB NHC Register.
-
Top Games Inc
A paid-for X ad for the game Evony: The King’s Return featured gameplay that was not representative of the actual game.
-
Vytaliving Ltd
A press ad for nutritional tablets claimed a food could treat, prevent or cure human disease, featured claims that were not authorised on the GB NHC Register, and made misleading claims around savings.
-
BPerfect Ltd
A TikTok video on Stephanie Vavron’s account was not obviously identifiable as an ad.
-
OneCompress
Two paid-for Facebook ads for bamboo gloves and socks made medical claims for unlicensed products.
-
Vir Health Ltd t/a Numan
A TV ad for a hair loss treatment guaranteed the efficacy of the product, breaking the Code.
-
Volkswagen Group United Kingdom Ltd t/a Audi
A Video on Demand ad for an electric car featured misleading claims about charging time and mileage.
-
Hovis Ltd t/a Hovis
Three webpages and an Instagram post did not misleadingly use the terms “rustic”, “authentical”, “traditional”, “artisanal-inspired bread” and “no artificial preservatives”.
-
Supreme CBD Ltd t/a Supreme CBD
Four posts on X (formerly Twitter) were not obviously identifiable as ads, and claimed that a food could treat insomnia and anxiety.
-
LifeSafe Technologies Ltd
Two paid-for TikTok ads misleadingly implied a fire extinguisher was suitable for all sizes and types of fires.
-
Lynne McTaggart
Two marketing emails and a website made misleading claims about alternative medicine treating medical conditions, and discouraged people seeking essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought.
-
Medi Supplies Ltd
A website made two pricing claims that were misleading and could not be substantiated.
-
Pasifik Health Services Inc t/a Care In Turkey
A paid-for Google search ad made misleading claims about ‘world-class doctors’ that could not be substantiated, and made misleading and irresponsible claims about safety.
-
Planet Computers Ltd
A website misleadingly stated when a smartphone would be in stock.
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 (78)