Rulings (9)
  • 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.

  • 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