-
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.
-
Sparks Information PTE Ltd t/a Hunting Sniper
A paid-for Facebook ad for Hunting Sniper, a mobile app game, featured realistic footage of harm to animals, which was likely to cause widespread offence and unjustified distress.
-
Aldi Stores Ltd t/a Aldi
A wrap around national press ad made misleading comparative claims which could not be verified, as well as a misleading claim about prices compared to last year.
-
Simba Sleep Ltd
A website featured misleading claims around reference prices and associated savings.
-
Capital Credit Union Ltd
A paid-for Meta post irresponsibly encouraged consumers to spend more than they could afford by taking out a loan to fund Christmas spending.
-
Lenovo Technology (UK) Ltd
An email contained the misleading claim “Get 10% off any product”.
-
Pennine Community Credit Union Ltd t/a PCCU
A paid-for Meta post irresponsibly encouraged consumers to spend more than they could afford by taking out a loan to fund Christmas spending.
-
Brooksdale Ltd
Three paid-for Facebook ads for PPI tax rebates misleadingly implied they were from HMRC or an official government service, and irresponsibly took advantage of people’s concerns about the cost of living crisis.
-
Churchill Retirement Living Ltd t/a Churchill Retirement Living
A website and a paid-for Facebook ad made misleading claims about savings, and was irresponsible for exploiting the cost of living crisis.
-
Reclaim My PPI Tax Ltd t/a Reclaim My PPI Tax
Three paid-for Facebook ads for PPI tax rebates misleadingly implied they were from HMRC or an official government service, and irresponsibly took advantage of people’s concerns about the cost of living crisis.
-
Team RH Fitness Ltd
A TikTok video did not make it clear that an advertised subscription was for a minimum term of 12 months.
-
Gamehaus Network Technology Co Ltd
An in-app ad for a mobile game featuring an incestuous relationship, suggesting a child had been sexualised and groomed by an adult and portraying a child in a sexual way was likely to cause serious and widespread offence.
-
Outsourceful Ltd t/a Outsourceful
An email and website for a recruitment agency perpetuated harmful racial stereotypes and were likely to cause serious offence.
-
FunPlus International AG t/a Funplus
An in-app ad for a mobile game was likely to cause serious offence by trivialising and condoning sexual assault and sexual violence.
-
Zzoomm plc
A direct mailing misleadingly stated the savings someone could make with their broadband service.
-
Borthwick Group (Energy) Ltd
A paid-for Facebook ad from a credit broker misleadingly suggested that it had been endorsed or approved by the BBC.
-
FanCraze Technologies Inc
A Tweet from Essex County Cricket Club for NFTs wasn’t obviously identifiable as a marketing communication; didn’t make it clear which cryptowallet a prospective buyer would need; didn’t make it clear that it was referring to an investment product or that gas fees applied; and failed to illustrate the...
-
Prism Marketing Group Ltd t/a Green Energy Voucher
A Facebook post and a landing page for a home improvement saving company exaggerated the efficacy of spray foam insulation and misleadingly implied consumers could get a discount on its installation.
-
TMS Legal Ltd
Two paid-for TikTok posts were misleading, as they implied testimonials featured were from genuine customers of Vanquis Bank and Moneybarn No.1.
-
Shenzhen Guangming District Kangshuo E-Commerce Firm t/a Health Support Store
A paid-for ad on AliExpress was irresponsible for featuring a model that appeared unhealthily thin and made medicinal claims for an unlicensed product.
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 (51)