Rulings (20)
  • Avensure Ltd t/a Employment Law Advice Bureau

    • Upheld
    • 22 May 2024

    A direct mailing to a business was not obviously identifiable as an ad.  

  • Nationwide Building Society t/a Nationwide

    • Upheld
    • Press general, Television, Radio
    • 03 April 2024

    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.

  • Capital Credit Union Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 28 February 2024

    A paid-for Meta post irresponsibly encouraged consumers to spend more than they could afford by taking out a loan to fund Christmas spending.

  • Pennine Community Credit Union Ltd t/a PCCU

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 28 February 2024

    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

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 31 January 2024

    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.

  • Reclaim My PPI Tax Ltd t/a Reclaim My PPI Tax

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 31 January 2024

    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.

  • Borthwick Group (Energy) Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 15 November 2023

    A paid-for Facebook ad from a credit broker misleadingly suggested that it had been endorsed or approved by the BBC.

  • FanCraze Technologies Inc

    • Upheld
    • Social media (own site)
    • 15 November 2023

    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...

  • TMS Legal Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 15 November 2023

    Two paid-for TikTok posts were misleading, as they implied testimonials featured were from genuine customers of Vanquis Bank and Moneybarn No.1.

  • Key Retirement Solutions Ltd t/a Key Equity Release

    • Upheld
    • Television
    • 13 September 2023

    A TV ad for an equity release mortgage product exploited the financial fears of the audience and did not make the risks and suitability of the product sufficiently clear.

  • Versus Law Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (own site)
    • 30 August 2023

    A page on the Flight Delay Claim website implied that passengers of flights cancelled or delayed over three hours were guaranteed compensation and did not make clear that there were advertiser’s fees or that consumers could only apply for compensation for Loganair flights through their service if they had first c...

  • Blackford Casks Ltd t/a Whisky Investment Partners

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content), Social media (own site), Internet (display)
    • 23 August 2023

    An online display ad, website and two paid-for Facebook posts for a whisky cask investment company made misleading and unsubstantiated investment return claims, did not make the risks involved in whisky investment clear and took advantage of consumers’ inexperience and credulity.

  • London Cask Co Ltd t/a London Cask Company

    • Upheld
    • National newspaper (paid ad), Search (paid), Internet (website content)
    • 23 August 2023

    Two national newspaper ads, a website and a paid-for Google ad for a whisky cask investment company made misleading and unsubstantiated investment return claims and did not make the risks involved in whisky investment clear.

  • One Source Digital Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 16 August 2023

    A paid-for Facebook ad for an ECO funding and government grant scheme misleadingly implied that the company was endorsed by or affiliated with the UK Government.

  • Prime Star Shop Ltd t/a Branshaws

    • Upheld in part
    • Press general
    • 16 August 2023

    A press ad for an Electric Heater misleadingly implied that their mini heater provided a viable alternative to gas central heating and that it could save consumers money compared to gas central heating. 

  • Age Partnership Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Television
    • 26 July 2023

    A TV ad for an equity release advisor and retirement income service provider misleadingly offered financial advice which they were unauthorised to provide.

  • WeShop Holdings Ltd t/a WeShop

    • Upheld
    • Social media (influencer or affiliate ad)
    • 19 July 2023

    Ads for a shopping app, posted to Instagram Stories, were found to be not clearly labelled as ads, with one ad also making misleading claims about the future value of shares. 

  • Phillipson Hardwick Advisory Ltd t/a The Tax Hero

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad), Internet (website content)
    • 31 May 2023

    A paid for Facebook ad and website for a tax repayment agent made claims about available refund amounts without supporting evidence, omitted significant conditions and didn’t make clear that consumers could apply directly to HMRC at no cost.

  • Quickly Finance Ltd t/a Fast Track Reclaim

    • Upheld
    • Search (paid), Internet (website content)
    • 31 May 2023

    A paid for Google ad and website for a tax repayment agent made claims about available refund amounts without supporting evidence, omitted significant conditions and didn’t make clear that consumers could apply directly to HMRC at no cost.

  • Total Tax Claims Ltd t/a Total Tax Refunds

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content), Social media (own site)
    • 31 May 2023

    A paid for Facebook ad and website, for a tax repayment agent, made claims about available refund amounts without supporting evidence, omitted significant conditions and didn’t make clear that consumers could apply directly to HMRC at no cost.