Rulings (9)
  • Charlotte Tilbury Beauty Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
    • 13 October 2021

    An Instagram Reel and an Instagram Story posted by an influencer were banned for not being obviously identifiable as ads.

  • HairCybele

    • Upheld
    • Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
    • 29 September 2021

    An Instagram Story by Jennifer Metcalfe promoting a hair styling device was not obviously identifiable as an ad. We referred the matter to CAP’s Compliance team.

  • PBO Skincare Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (own site)
    • 29 September 2021

    An Instagram post promoting a food supplement was banned for making unauthorised and unsubstantiated skincare claims.

  • BPerfect Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
    • 21 July 2021

    A series of Instagram story posts on Charlotte Dawson’s account were banned for failing to disclose they were ads, as well as using filters to exaggerate a product’s efficacy

  • Boux Avenue Ltd

    • Not upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 02 June 2021

    A paid-for Facebook ad featuring a woman wearing lingerie did not break the CAP Code as the model did not appear to be unhealthily thin.

  • 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.