Rulings

Solihull Health Check Clinic

• Upheld
• Internet (on own site)
• 14 October 2020

A website ad for a health clinic was banned for stating that a COVID-19 antibody test was 100% accurate and for implying that a positive result would show that people were immune to the disease.

The Private Harley Street Clinic

• Upheld
• Internet (on own site)
• 22 April 2020

Claims on a website that an IV drip treatment could prevent or treat coronavirus/COVID-19 broke the advertising rules.

Easy Shopping 4 Home Ltd

• Upheld
• Internet (OM 3rd party)
• 04 March 2020

A product listing on Amazon for face masks claiming to protect consumers from coronavirus was misleading and irresponsible and likely to cause fear without justifiable reason.

REVIV UK Ltd

• Upheld
• Internet (on own site)
• 22 April 2020

Claims on a website that an IV drip treatment could prevent or treat coronavirus/COVID-19 broke the advertising rules.

Go-Vi Ltd

• Upheld
• Internet (website content)
• 23 June 2021

A website ad for an air and surface purifier was banned for stating it could destroy Covid-19 without holding sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim.

Steven Thomas

• Upheld
• 02 February 2022

stated, “REMEMBER … mRNA vaccines have never previously been used on humans … The phase 3 Coronavirus

Coronavirus/Covid-19 vaccine trails end in 2023 meaning these ‘vaccines’ are experimental … Covid

Evaq Ltd

• Upheld
• Website (own site)
• 30 June 2021

A website ad for facemasks was banned for misleadingly stating that the masks could kill Covid-19.

Manuka Doctor (UK) Ltd

• Upheld
• National newspaper (ad feature)
• 06 January 2021

A newspaper ad for a brand of honey was banned for implying that it could be used as a treatment for coughs and for implying that its “anti-microbial” properties could treat diseases.

Novads OU

• Upheld
• Internet (on own site), Internet (display)
• 04 March 2020

Paid-for display ads and website claims for face masks claiming to protect consumers from coronavirus were misleading and irresponsible and likely to cause fear without justifiable reason.

Stacey Bradley

• Upheld
• Newspaper
• 25 May 2022

Two local press ads, one print and one digital, misleadingly implied they had been placed, endorsed or approved by a public body and misleadingly implied COVID-19 vaccinations were unsafe and illegal. They were socially irresponsible and caused fear without justifiable reason.

Cosmetic Medical Advice UK Ltd t/a Dr Rita Rakus Clinic

• Upheld
• Internet (social networking)
• 22 April 2020

Instagram posts that implied an IV drip treatment could help to prevent people from catching coronavirus/COVID-19 broke the advertising rules.

Vic Smith Bedding Ltd

• Upheld
• Regional press
• 11 March 2020

A newspaper ad for mattresses was banned for being offensive as it associated immigrants with diseases such as the coronavirus.

PCK SKIN (Manchester) Ltd t/a SkinSpaceUK

• Upheld
• Email
• 13 May 2020

A promotional email, by an aesthetic clinic, offering vitamin injections broke the rules by promoting prescription-only medicines to the general public.

Freudenberg Household Products LP t/a Vileda

• Upheld
• Email
• 11 August 2021

An email from an industry news outlet was banned for implying that their microfibre cloth could remove Covid-19 with a high level of efficacy without having sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim.

Copper Clothing Ltd t/a Copper Clothing

• Upheld
• Radio
• 13 October 2021

A radio ad for a facemask was banned for misleadingly implying that it could rapidly de-activate COVID-19 particles.

Profit Accumulator Ltd t/a Bonus Accumulator

• Upheld
• Social media (paid ad)
• 14 October 2020

A paid-for Facebook post and a website post for a betting company were banned for presenting gambling as a way to achieve financial security, for being misleading and for being socially irresponsible.

Jemella Ltd t/a GHD

• Upheld
• Internet (social networking)
• 04 November 2020

A TikTok post by Emily Canham about a GHD branded hairdryer was banned for not being obviously identifiable as an ad.

Cignpost Diagnostics Ltd

• Upheld
• Newspaper
• 21 July 2021

A newspaper ad for a PCR testing programme was banned for promoting behaviour that contradicted government advice on social distancing.

DRTY DRINKS Ltd

• Upheld
• Social media (own site)
• 07 July 2021

Two Instagram posts by a drinks company were banned for making misleading nutrition claims for an alcoholic drink and for encouraging excessive drinking.

BrewDog plc

• Upheld in part
• National newspaper (paid ad)
• 18 November 2020

Poster and press ads for BrewDog beer broke the rules on offence by using a reference to an expletive in media targeted to a general audience. The same ad appearing in targeted magazines did not break the rules.