-
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.
-
OneCompress
Two paid-for Facebook ads for bamboo gloves and socks made medical claims for unlicensed products.
-
GMRD Apps Ltd t/a Impulse Brain Training
A paid-for Facebook ad for a puzzle game app made medical claims without being registered with the MHRA and discouraged people from seeking essential treatment for ADHD.
-
Happyo
A paid-for Facebook ad for a behaviour programme aimed at those with ADHD made medical claims without being registered with the MHRA and discouraged people from seeking essential treatment for a condition where medical supervision should be sought.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Doctor Burgos de la Obra SLP t/a drburgosdelaobra_lipedema
Ads on Gabriella Lindley’s YouTube, TikTok and Instagram pages were not obviously identifiable as ads.
-
MEP LLC t/a O2HyperHealth
A website and leaflet for hyperbaric oxygen therapy discouraged essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought.
-
Alibaba.com Singapore E-commerce Private Ltd t/a Alibaba.com
A paid-for ad on a newspaper website portrayed a child in a sexualised way and was harmful and socially irresponsible.
-
OrganicSupplies GB
A product listing for a B12 vitamin injection kit promoted a prescription-only medicine (POM) to the public.
-
Mitu Inc Ltd
A paid-for ad for an adult video chat app portrayed someone who seemed to be under 18 years of age in a sexual way.
-
The Fibro Guy Ltd t/a The Fibro Guy
The website for a chronic pain and hypermobility syndrome support and coaching programme claimed that the treatments and techniques they used could treat chronic pain and various health conditions.
-
Wuka Ltd t/a WUKA
A TV ad and Video on Demand (VOD) ad for a period underwear company was not offensive and was unlikely to cause distress.
-
Lipstick Gangster Ltd t/a The Lipstick Gangster
A post on a beauty clinic’s Facebook page promoted an unlicensed medicinal product and made misleading and unsubstantiated claims about the efficacy of a treatment.
-
Menar Jimmy Georgiou
A post on a beauty clinic’s Facebook page promoted prescription-only medicines to the general public.
-
LIFT Aesthetics t/a lift.aesthetics
Six ads on Carl Woods’ and the advertiser’s Instagram accounts advertised prescription-only medicine to the public, used a celebrity to endorse a medicine, and were not obviously identifiable as ads.
-
Egemed Hastaneleri
A paid-for Facebook ad promoting cosmetic surgery in Turkey irresponsibly trivialised the decision to have cosmetic surgery, omitted material information regarding cosmetic surgery procedures abroad and the need for a pre-consultation, and advertised prescription-only medicines to the general public.
-
Estheday
A paid-for Instagram story promoting cosmetic surgery trivialised the decision to have cosmetic surgery, misleadingly exaggerated the effectiveness of the two promoted cosmetic procedures and omitted material information regarding cosmetic surgery procedures abroad and the need for a pre-consultation.
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 (28)