-
ARSJ Holding Ltd
We upheld complaints against health claims in an ad for Brite Drinks.
-
Tecnología Sostenible y Responsable SL (TSR) t/a Sustainable and Responsible Technology SL
A paid-for X ad made misleading claims about the effect of blue light on eyes.
-
Ignite Sustainable Energy Ltd t/a ignitese.co.uk
Two paid-for Facebook and Instagram ads offering a home efficiency scheme grant misleadingly implied that the company was endorsed by or associated with the UK Government.
-
Bambooi Sustainable Enterprises Ltd t/a Bambooi
A Facebook ad and the website for an electric toothbrush manufacturer made misleading claims about the expected delivery date as well as misleading environmental claims.
-
4AIR LLC
A paid-for Google ad, for 4AIR LLC misleadingly understated the environmental impact of their service.
-
Air France-KLM
A paid-for Google ad gave a misleading impression of the airline’s environmental impact.
-
Deutsche Lufthansa AG t/a Lufthansa
A paid-for Google ad gave a misleading impression of the airline’s environmental impact.
-
Vacaciones eDreams, S.L. t/a eDreams
Two paid-for online display ads made unsubstantiated environmental claims.
-
Floor Design Ltd t/a Flooring by Nature
A website failed to substantiate environmental claims and didn’t make clear that these claims referred to only part of a carpet, and the actions people would need to take for their carpet to successfully biodegrade.
-
Mazda Motors UK Ltd
A paid-for Meta ad for the Mazda2 Hybrid car gave a misleading impression of the vehicle’s environment impact and made absolute claims that couldn’t be evidenced.
-
Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd t/a Virgin Atlantic
A radio ad for Virgin Atlantic included the unqualified claim "100% sustainable aviation fuel", which gave a misleading impression of the fuel's environmental impact.
-
Hurtigruten UK Ltd t/a HX Hurtigruten Expeditions
A paid-for ad in a digital newspaper for a cruise made misleading and unsubstantiated claims about the environmental impact of the expedition and failed to make the basis of these environmental claims clear.
-
Repsol SA
A paid-for online display ad for Repsol, misleadingly omitted material information including how and when Repsol would achieve net zero emissions, and the role that the development of biofuels would play in that plan.
-
Petroliam Nasional Berhad t/a PETRONAS
A TV ad for Petronas misleadingly omitted material information about the balance of its current activities, its emissions, and the pathway to reducing them.
-
Haven Power Ltd
A website post by an electricity supplier did not make misleading environmental claims.
-
Etihad Airways
Two Facebook ads for an airline made misleading environmental claims about the impact of flying.
-
Fussy Ltd
Fussy Ltd: A LinkedIn and Instagram ad for Fussy deodorant discredited and denigrated a competitor's brand and products.
-
Evergreens (UK) Ltd t/a ArtificialGrass.com
A website and two YouTube video ads for artificial grass were misleading as they overstated the environmental benefits and air purifying qualities of the products.
-
SCA Investments Ltd t/a Gousto
A website ad for the meal subscription service Gousto misleadingly stated that their packaging was 100% plastic free and misleadingly stated that it was 100% recyclable.
-
Golden Leaves Ltd
An ad on the company’s website misleadingly implied that their MDF coffins were more eco-friendly than other options, without sufficient evidence.
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 (59)