Rulings (12)
  • 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.

  • 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.

  • We Are Luxe Ltd t/a TANOLOGIST TAN, in association with Cinzia Baylis-Zullo

    • Upheld
    • Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
    • 03 February 2021

    An Instagram story by an influencer promoting a beauty product was banned for applying a filter which misleadingly exaggerated the effect the product was capable of achieving.

  • Unilever UK Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 13 January 2021

    A paid-for Facebook post by Boots was banned for implying that a lotion product could protect babies’ skin microbiome without holding sufficient evidence to demonstrate that this was the case.

  • L(A)B Life and Beauty

    • Upheld
    • Internet (on own site)
    • 16 December 2020

    A website post and three Facebook posts by a skin and healthcare company were banned for claiming its belt product could help consumers lose weight without substantial evidence to support the claim.

  • Easylife Group Ltd t/a Easylife Group, Positive Health

    • Upheld
    • 02 December 2020

    A brochure ad for a skin product was banned for implying that it was effective at removing the appearance of wrinkles and removing skin tags, without adequate evidence.

  • Health Solutions Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Leaflet
    • 25 November 2020

    A leaflet for a healthcare service was banned for implying that their food supplements could prevent, treat or cure human disease.

  • Jemella Ltd t/a GHD

    • Upheld
    • Internet (social networking)
    • 04 November 2020

    A TikTok post by Emily Canham about a GHD branded hairdryer was banned for not being obviously identifiable as an ad.

  • Basetan

    • Upheld
    • Internet (social networking)
    • 02 September 2020

    A Facebook post promoting a tanning salon misleadingly implied sunbeds were the most efficient way to increase vitamin D levels and discouraged essential treatment for medical conditions.

  • Harvey Water Softeners Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Leaflet
    • 05 August 2020

    A leaflet for a water softener misleadingly claimed that the product produced glossier hair and softer skin.

  • STYLIDEAS Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Internet (social networking)
    • 06 May 2020

    A tweet by Lord Alan Sugar and Stylsmile UK did not make clear it was an ad.

  • Procter & Gamble (Health & Beauty Care) Ltd

    • Not upheld
    • Internet (on own site), Website (own site), Television
    • 29 April 2020

    A TV ad and website claims for an anti-ageing moisturiser did not mislead about the level of sun protection the product provided