-
Lloyds Bank plc
A paid-for LinkedIn post for Lloyds Bank was misleading as it omitted significant information about the company’s environmental impact.
-
Wizz Air Hungary Ltd
A paid-for Google ad for Wizz Air gave a misleading impression of their flights’ environmental impact by not making the basis of comparative claims clear or providing verifying information.
-
The BLAC Awards (UK) C.I.C t/a The BLAC Awards
Four Facebook posts on The BLAC Awards page, and a website for The BLAC Awards misleadingly implied that they had an official partnership with the Royal Air Force.
-
Quintain Living Ltd
A website made misleading claims about the average saving customers would make on energy costs and claimed that a package included free Wi-Fi and work from home areas, when these were just included in the package price.
-
Gelcard Ltd t/a Water2
An email advertising a water filter caused unjustified fear or distress on the basis of misleading claims.
-
FL19 CIC t/a Frontline 19
A cinema ad for a non-profit support service wasn't irresponsible and did not cause unjustifiable distress.
-
London Luton Airport Ltd t/a Luton Rising
A magazine ad and a poster for Luton Rising did not adequately qualify the claims made in the ad and omitted material information about the environmental impact of London Luton Airport’s expansion.
-
Wessex Water Services Ltd
A TV ad for Wessex Water did not adequately qualify the environmental claims made in the ad and omitted material information about the company’s environmental impact.
-
Alzheimer's Society
Three TV ads and a radio ad for a charity were not irresponsible, did not cause serious or widespread offence, and did not cause unjustifiable distress.
-
Easigrass (Distribution) Ltd
A Facebook post and website for artificial grass made misleading claims about recyclability, and misleadingly implied the product was eco friendly.
-
Ford Motor Company Ltd t/a Ford
A paid-for Google ad did not mislead when claiming a car had ‘zero emissions driving’.
-
BMW (UK) Ltd
A paid-for Google ad misleadingly represented a vehicle’s environmental impact.
-
Greater London Authority
A radio ad about the ULEZ expansion misleadingly claimed that one of the most polluted places in London is inside people’s cars.
-
MG Motor UK Ltd
A paid-for Google ad misleadingly represented a vehicle’s environmental impact.
-
Transport For London t/a TFL
A TV ad, radio ads and a press ad for Transport for London’s Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) expansion contained some misleading claims about reductions in levels of nitrous oxide in central London.
-
Churchill Retirement Living Ltd t/a Churchill Retirement Living
A website and a paid-for Facebook ad made misleading claims about savings, and was irresponsible for exploiting the cost of living crisis.
-
AGA Rangemaster Ltd t/a AGA
A website that claimed a cooker had “the lowest running costs for any heat-storage cast-iron range cooker” was misleading, unverifiable and could not be substantiated.
-
Build Hollywood Ltd
Media: Other
Topic: Charity, education and Third sector