Rulings (12)
  • Barclays Bank plc

    • Not upheld
    • Magazine (paid ad)
    • 09 April 2025

    A magazine ad was unlikely to give a misleading impression of Barclay’s overall contribution to carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions.

  • Shell UK Ltd

    • Not upheld
    • Television
    • 09 April 2025

    A TV ad didn’t give a misleading impression of Shell’s environmental impact.

  • TotalEnergies SE

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 09 April 2025

    A paid-for X ad for TotalEnergies omitted material information about the proportion of their overall business activities that comprised lower-carbon activities.

  • OceanSaver Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site), Television
    • 02 April 2025

    A website and TV ad made unsubstantiated environmental claims.

  • EDF Energy Ltd

    • Upheld
    • 19 February 2025

    A radio ad was misleading as it omitted information and didn’t make the basis of the claims made in the ad clear.

  • ScottishPower Energy Retail Ltd t/a Scottish Power

    • Upheld
    • Television
    • 05 February 2025

    A TV ad featuring George Clarke wasn't quickly recognisable as an ad and led viewers to believe they were watching a programme. 

  • Lloyds Bank plc

    • Upheld in part
    • Poster, Social media (paid ad)
    • 18 December 2024

    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

    • Upheld
    • Website (paid ad)
    • 27 November 2024

    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.

  • Quintain Living Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content)
    • 14 August 2024

    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

    • Upheld
    • Email
    • 31 July 2024

    An email advertising a water filter caused unjustified fear or distress on the basis of misleading claims.

  • London Luton Airport Ltd t/a Luton Rising

    • Upheld
    • 10 July 2024

    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

    • Upheld
    • Television
    • 10 July 2024

    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.