Rulings (18)
  • British Telecommunications plc t/a BT

    • Upheld
    • Website (own site)
    • 09 October 2024

    A webpage on the BT website didn’t make clear that their broadband contracts would be subject to mid-contract price increases.

  • British Telecommunications plc t/a BT

    • Upheld in part
    • Poster
    • 05 May 2021

    A poster for BT was banned for making misleading claims about the reliability of their full fibre broadband.

  • British Telecommunications plc t/a BT, BT Sport

    • Upheld
    • Internet (website content)
    • 22 December 2021

    A website ad for BT was banned for making misleading internet speed claims. 

  • Zzoomm plc

    • Upheld
    • Direct mail
    • 10 January 2024

    A direct mailing misleadingly stated the savings someone could make with their broadband service.

  • Vodafone Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Social media (paid ad), Television
    • 18 September 2024

    A TV ad, paid-for X ad and website for Vodafone made unsubstantiated claims that their broadband services provided a nearly identical performance to BT's services, and that millions of BT broadband customers had already switched, or were actively considering switching, to Vodafone.

  • Sky UK Ltd

    • Upheld in part
    • Internet (website content)
    • 26 July 2023

    The website for Sky Business broadband made savings claims that were not available to all consumers and misleading price comparisons. 

  • Telefonica UK Ltd t/a O2

    • Upheld
    • National newspaper (paid ad), Television
    • 24 February 2021

    A TV and newspaper ad for O2 which claimed it was the “UK’s No.1 Network” was found to be misleading because the comparisons it made with competitors were not clear.

  • Sky UK Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Email, Internet (website content)
    • 10 August 2022

    Claims on a website and in an email about being the “top-performing major broadband provider” and which implied Sky had won an award from Ofcom were misleading

  • Vodafone Ltd

    • Not upheld
    • Television, Internet (video), VOD
    • 23 November 2022

    A TV ad, two Video on Demand (VOD) ads and a YouTube ad for a Telecommunications service that featured the delivery of a baby in an emergency situation was not irresponsible and was unlikely to condone or encourage behaviour that prejudiced health or safety.

  • Moneysupermarket.com Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Radio
    • 09 March 2022

    A radio ad for moneysupermarket.com was banned because the terms and conditions were not presented in a clear and intelligible manner. 

  • Sky UK Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Television
    • 13 May 2020

    A TV ad misleadingly implied Sky offered the UK’s lowest-priced superfast broadband.

  • Virgin Media Ltd

    • Upheld in part
    • Television, Internet (website content)
    • 04 May 2022

    We partially upheld complaints from BT over two ads for Virgin Media.

  • Sky UK Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Television
    • 17 February 2021

    A TV ad for Sky was banned for making misleading savings claims about a Sky TV and Broadband package.

  • WHG (International) Ltd t/a William Hill Online

    • Not upheld
    • Social media (paid ad)
    • 23 August 2023

    A promoted tweet for William Hill was not of strong appeal to those aged under 18.

  • Vodafone Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Website (paid ad)
    • 28 July 2021

    A paid-for internet search ad for Vodafone was banned for claiming to be the “UK’s best mobile data network” without having adequate proof to substantiate the claim.

  • CityFibre Holdings Ltd

    • Not upheld
    • Direct mail
    • 23 April 2025

    A direct mailing wasn't misleading.

  • PPB Counterparty Services Ltd t/a Paddy Power

    • Not upheld
    • Television
    • 08 February 2023

    Two TV ads for Paddy Power which featured Peter Crouch were not of strong appeal to those under 18 years of age.

  • Vodafone Ltd

    • Upheld
    • Newspaper, Internet (website content)
    • 28 July 2021

    A website and newspaper ad for Vodafone were banned for claiming to be the “UK’s best mobile data network” without having adequate proof to substantiate the claim.

Informally resolved (31)
  • British Telecommunications plc t/a BT, BT Sport

    • 03 July 2024
    • Number of complaints: 0

  • British Telecommunications plc t/a BT, BT Sport

    • 06 September 2023
    • Number of complaints: 1

  • British Telecommunications plc t/a BT, BT Sport

    • 07 September 2022
    • Number of complaints: 0

  • British Telecommunications plc t/a BT, BT Sport

    • 09 December 2020
    • Number of complaints: 1

  • British Telecommunications plc t/a BT, BT Sport

    • 02 December 2020
    • Number of complaints: 1

  • British Telecommunications plc

    • 02 November 2022
    • Number of complaints: 1

  • British Telecommunications plc

    • 28 October 2020
    • Number of complaints: 1

  • British Telecommunications plc

    • 22 September 2021
    • Number of complaints: 1

  • British Telecommunications plc

    • 09 June 2021
    • Number of complaints: 1

  • British Telecommunications plc

    • 23 June 2021
    • Number of complaints: 1

  • British Telecommunications plc

    • 03 June 2020
    • Number of complaints: 1

  • British Telecommunications plc

    • 26 August 2020
    • Number of complaints: 1

  • Phonely Ltd t/a Phonely

    • 12 June 2024
    • Number of complaints: 1

    Topic: Computers, phones and telecoms

  • EE Ltd

    • 24 January 2024
    • Number of complaints: 1

  • British Telecommunications plc

    • 03 April 2024
    • Number of complaints: 1

  • Virgin Media Ltd

    • 03 May 2023
    • Number of complaints: 1

  • British Telecommunications plc

    • 16 March 2022
    • Number of complaints: 1

  • Vodafone Ltd

    • 13 April 2022
    • Number of complaints: 1

  • TalkTalk Telecom Ltd

    • 06 January 2021
    • Number of complaints: 1

  • Telefonica UK Ltd

    • 29 April 2020
    • Number of complaints: 1