-
Domino's Pizza UK & Ireland Ltd t/a Domino's
Two paid-for social media ads for Domino’s pizza didn’t break the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy product.
-
Kentucky Fried Chicken (Great Britain) Ltd t/a KFC
A TV ad, Video on Demand and three paid-for social media ads for KFC didn’t break the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy product.
-
Mars Wrigley Confectionery UK Ltd t/a Mars
A paid-for Instagram ad for M&M’s broke the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy food product through the inclusion of a character that depicted a specific less healthy food product.
-
Papa John's (GB) Ltd t/a Papa Johns
A paid for Facebook ad for Papa John’s didn’t break the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy product.
-
S&E1 Ltd t/a Morley's Woking
A paid-for Instagram ad for Morley’s broke the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy food product.
-
Uber Eats UK Ltd t/a Uber Eats
A Video on Demand pause ad for Uber Eats didn’t break the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy product.
-
Paramount Pictures UK
A pre-roll YouTube ad wasn’t likely to cause serious or widespread offence.
-
Singapore New Reading Technology Pte Ltd t/a GoodNovel
An in-game ad for an online reading platform was socially irresponsible, condoned violence, included harmful gender stereotypes and was likely to cause harm or serious and widespread offence.
-
Videoslots Ltd t/a Mr Vegas
A paid-for Facebook ad for a gambling company featured imagery that was likely to be of strong appeal to under-18s.
-
Big Fang Collective Ltd t/a Golf Fang
A leaflet for an indoor golf venue didn’t make clear it was an ad and caused unjustified distress by resembling a parking ticket.
-
Parc AI Ltd t/a Parc
A leaflet for a car parking app didn’t make clear it was an ad and caused unjustified distress by resembling a parking ticket.
-
Patisserie Valerie Production Ltd t/a Patisserie Valerie
Three paid-for Google search ads for Patisserie Valerie didn’t break the less healthy food rules as they were a small or medium sized enterprise and therefore were exempt from the restrictions.
-
Wrappiness UK
A paid-for Facebook ad for an online décor and gift retailer was likely to cause serious and widespread offence including by using explicit language and sexual references.
-
Optimize Business Ltd t/a SoulTalk
A paid-for TikTok ad for an AI-friends chat app was socially irresponsible and caused serious and widespread offence, including by objectifying and sexualising women and featuring a harmful gender stereotype.
-
Amazon Europe Core Sarl t/a Amazon.co.uk
A paid-for Instagram ad for Amazon Fresh UK broke the rules by featuring an identifiable less healthy food product.
-
Dribble Media Ltd t/a Midnite
A TikTok post on Mia Mon’s account promoting an online betting platform didn’t feature someone who was likely to be of strong appeal to under-18s.
-
Betway Ltd t/a Betway
An Instagram post for Betway featuring Thierry Henry wasn’t likely to be of strong appeal to under-18s.
-
Cyan Blue Odds Ltd t/a Oddschecker
Two Instagram posts for an online betting platform featuring Harry Kane and Erling Haaland were likely to be of strong appeal to under-18s.
-
linyixiansanrenwangluokejiyouxiangongsi t/a IDJRDDF
A product listing on Amazon featured a gender stereotype that was likely to cause harm or serious offence.
-
Perrin Et Fils SAS t/a La Vieille Ferme
A paid-for TikTok ad for a wine company irresponsibly implied that alcohol had therapeutic qualities, portrayed alcohol as being capable of changing your mood and a source of nourishment and made health claims. The ad was also socially irresponsible by encouraging excessive drinking.
Rulings
Our rulings are published every Wednesday and set out on the public record how, following a formal 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 agree to amend or withdraw their ad without being subject to a formal ruling.
Rulings (29)