-
Nationwide Building Society t/a Nationwide
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.
-
Worldwide Trademarks sro t/a Worldwide Trademarks
A direct mailing was not obviously identifiable as an ad, and misleadingly had the appearance of an invoice.
-
Capital Credit Union Ltd
A paid-for Meta post irresponsibly encouraged consumers to spend more than they could afford by taking out a loan to fund Christmas spending.
-
Lenovo Technology (UK) Ltd
An email contained the misleading claim “Get 10% off any product”.
-
Pennine Community Credit Union Ltd t/a PCCU
A paid-for Meta post irresponsibly encouraged consumers to spend more than they could afford by taking out a loan to fund Christmas spending.
-
BKUK Group Ltd t/a Burger King
Three emails for foods in high in fat, salt or sugar (HFSS) were directed at children through the media in which they appeared.
-
Brooksdale Ltd
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.
-
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.
-
Reclaim My PPI Tax Ltd t/a Reclaim My PPI Tax
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.
-
Outsourceful Ltd t/a Outsourceful
An email and website for a recruitment agency perpetuated harmful racial stereotypes and were likely to cause serious offence.
-
Zzoomm plc
A direct mailing misleadingly stated the savings someone could make with their broadband service.
-
Eurostar International Ltd
A promotional email that advertised trips for £39 was misleading for not having enough tickets at that price point.
-
Borthwick Group (Energy) Ltd
A paid-for Facebook ad from a credit broker misleadingly suggested that it had been endorsed or approved by the BBC.
-
FanCraze Technologies Inc
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
Two paid-for TikTok posts were misleading, as they implied testimonials featured were from genuine customers of Vanquis Bank and Moneybarn No.1.
-
Prettylittlething.com Ltd t/a Prettylittlething.com
An email ad failed to administer a pricing promotion via a discount code fairly.
-
Key Retirement Solutions Ltd t/a Key Equity Release
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.
-
AOS Trading Ltd t/a Rattan Hut
An email, website, and paid-for Instagram story for a garden furniture retailer misleadingly claimed that items were free despite consumers having to meet a minimum order value to use the voucher codes.
-
Versus Law Ltd
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
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.
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 (33)