-
PEL Consultancy Services Ltd t/a PEL Investigations
We banned an ad for a private investigation agency for having unsubstantiated claims.
-
Lipstick Gangster Ltd t/a The Lipstick Gangster
A post on a beauty clinic’s Facebook page promoted an unlicensed medicinal product and made misleading and unsubstantiated claims about the efficacy of a treatment.
-
Funeralbooker Ltd t/a Beyond
Claims on a funeral comparison website were misleading.
-
Aldi Stores Ltd t/a Aldi
"Save 45%". Small text at the bottom of the page stated "Based on a comparison of Aldi for Tesco. Aldi prices and packaging correct as of 07/12/18. Subject to availability. For full product comparison details see [URL]".
skewed the price comparison in Aldi's favour, and that the ad did not make sufficiently clear that product, challenged whether the price comparison was misleading. Aldi Stores Ltd said that own-brand versus brand comparisons, and multi-product comparisons, were inherently permissible. The inclusion
-
Serenity Technologies Ltd t/a Neocremations
A website ad for a cremation service was banned for denigrating the company’s competitors.
-
Grapevine Europe Ltd
A TV ad for a car buying comparison site misled consumers about what personal information was needed to obtain valuations from their website.
-
Zzoomm plc
A direct mailing misleadingly stated the savings someone could make with their broadband service.
-
UK Insurance Ltd t/a Direct Line
A TV and radio ads for Direct Line insurance were banned over claims about competitive pricing
-
Tesco Stores Ltd t/a Tesco
TV and press basket comparison ads for Tesco were found to be misleading.
-
Sky UK Ltd
The website for Sky Business broadband made savings claims that were not available to all consumers and misleading price comparisons.
-
Uber BV
REPUBLISHED RULING: A paid-for ad and a national press ad for Uber made misleading and unsubstantiated claims about the staff benefits the company provided.
-
Iceland Foods Ltd t/a Iceland
A national press ad for a supermarket did not make a misleading price comparison.
-
Parcel2Go.com Ltd t/a Parcel2go
A website and an email for a parcel delivery comparison website omitted information about parcel restrictions and misled consumers about their ratings.
-
Volkswagen Group United Kingdom Ltd t/a Audi
A Video on Demand ad for an electric car featured misleading claims about charging time and mileage.
-
Procter & Gamble UK t/a Always
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.
-
The Secret Diamond Academy
Two posts on the Facebook page of a beauty salon advertised training courses for sclerotherapy, without making clear the nature, requirements, qualifications and professional registration details of the course.
-
Oneade
We banned an ad for using filters to exaggerate a beauty product’s efficacy.
-
Parcel2Go.com Ltd t/a Parcel2go
A 'Next Day+ Delivery' claim on a parcel delivery comparison website was banned for being misleading.
-
Outsourceful Ltd t/a Outsourceful
An email and website for a recruitment agency perpetuated harmful racial stereotypes and were likely to cause serious offence.
-
Emma Matratzen GmbH t/a Emma Mattress
Two paid-for YouTube ads failed to make it clear that a mattress comparison site was owned by a mattress company.
-
Live-In Care Direct
-
TalkTalk Telecom Ltd
-
British Telecommunications plc
-
Trading 212 Ltd
-
Native Snacks Ltd
-
Wren Kitchens Ltd
-
Vodafone Ltd
-
B&Q plc
-
Proper Leads Ltd
-
4MM Ltd
-
The Media Den Ltd
-
Neil Taylor Insolvency Ltd
-
GoDaddy Operating Company LLC
-
Top Online Partners Group Ltd
-
Conservatory Insulations Northwest Ltd
-
The Chord Company Ltd
-
Insight Retail Group Ltd
-
Toyota (GB) plc
-
Premier Inn Hotels Ltd
-
BetterCo Ltd