Claims, endorsements and testimonials

Helpful advice on how to correctly make claims and use endorsements and testimonials in advertising.

We recognise that testimonials can be an important tool to help advertisers promote their products and services. A negative or positive review can affect a consumer’s decision to part with their money. However it is just as important for advertisers to stick to the rules when using testimonials or endorsements in their ads.

Advertisers must be able to prove to us that testimonials and endorsements are from a real person and reflect accurately what that person said. Any claims made in endorsements or testimonials, which are likely to be interpreted as fact, must not mislead other consumers. Advertisers should be aware we do not accept testimonials as sufficient evidence to prove a claim about how effective a product is, i.e. that it worked. For example, a testimonial that product X cured the consumer of an illness.

It is also important that advertisers have the permission of the consumer to feature their testimonial in their ads and that they are aware of their obligations under the Database Practice rules for doing this.

There are some circumstances where the use of testimonials and endorsements in ads is strictly prohibited altogether. The use of health professionals or celebrities to endorse medicines is not allowed and advertisers can’t make health claims that refer to the recommendation of an individual health professional.

+ Read more - Show less

Latest rulings

GetAgent Ltd
- Upheld
- Internet (website content)
- 06 December 2023
A website for estate agent referrals did not make it clear that some results were marketing communications, and claimed to make ‘impartial recommendations’ which was misleading.
Imiracle (HK) Ltd t/a ELFBAR
- Upheld
- Poster, Digital outdoor
- 29 November 2023
A poster ad and digital billboard ad for Elfbar vapes misleadingly omitted information about limited recycling options, mislead about the environmental benefit the products offered and misleadingly highlighted an environmental benefit that comes from a legal obligation which also impacts competing products.
Merlin Attractions Operations Ltd t/a Alton Towers Resort
- Upheld
- Internet (website content)
- 29 November 2023
A website ad for Alton Towers Theme Park’s ‘Rainy Day Guarantee’ omitted material information about how it would be invoked.
Procter & Gamble UK t/a Always
- Upheld
- Television
- 29 November 2023
A TV ad for Always Discreet incontinence pads did not compare the product to the most appropriate version from the leading brand, and contained on-screen text whose placement misleading implied that 95% of women surveyed preferred the Always Discreet pad to the maxi pad from the leading brand.

View all rulings

Claims, endorsements and testimonials

Helpful advice on how to correctly make claims and use endorsements and testimonials in advertising.

Latest news

Green disposal claims in advertising

A window into marketing shared ownership housing

Mid-contract price increases in telecoms

Scam ads online: 2023 update on our Scam Ad Alert system

Recycled reminders for Recycle Week 2023

Step into (a compliant) Christmas

Latest rulings

GetAgent Ltd

Imiracle (HK) Ltd t/a ELFBAR

Merlin Attractions Operations Ltd t/a Alton Towers Resort

Procter & Gamble UK t/a Always

Help getting it right

Popular advice

Promotional savings claims

Misleading advertising

Online Affiliate Marketing

Relevant codes