-
Avensure Ltd t/a Employment Law Advice Bureau
A direct mailing to a business, received on 15 March 2024, sent in an envelope with the text “PRIVATE” at the top left and “IMPORTANT INFORMATION” at the bottom right. It featured a ‘scales of justice’ logo at the bottom left. The back of the envelope included a return address for Avensure Ltd.The enclosed letter featu...
-
Nationwide Building Society t/a Nationwide
TV, radio and press ads for Nationwide were misleading as consumers were likely to understand that the building society had made a long-term decision not to close their branches and that they had not recently closed any branches when this was not the case.
-
Capital Credit Union Ltd
A paid-for Meta post irresponsibly encouraged consumers to spend more than they could afford by taking out a loan to fund Christmas spending.
-
Pennine Community Credit Union Ltd t/a PCCU
A paid-for Meta post irresponsibly encouraged consumers to spend more than they could afford by taking out a loan to fund Christmas spending.
-
Brooksdale Ltd
Three paid-for Facebook ads for PPI tax rebates misleadingly implied they were from HMRC or an official government service, and irresponsibly took advantage of people’s concerns about the cost of living crisis.
-
Reclaim My PPI Tax Ltd t/a Reclaim My PPI Tax
Three paid-for Facebook ads for PPI tax rebates misleadingly implied they were from HMRC or an official government service, and irresponsibly took advantage of people’s concerns about the cost of living crisis.
-
Borthwick Group (Energy) Ltd
A paid-for Facebook ad from a credit broker misleadingly suggested that it had been endorsed or approved by the BBC.
-
FanCraze Technologies Inc
A Tweet from Essex County Cricket Club for NFTs wasn’t obviously identifiable as a marketing communication; didn’t make it clear which cryptowallet a prospective buyer would need; didn’t make it clear that it was referring to an investment product or that gas fees applied; and failed to illustrate the...
-
TMS Legal Ltd
Two paid-for TikTok posts were misleading, as they implied testimonials featured were from genuine customers of Vanquis Bank and Moneybarn No.1.
-
Key Retirement Solutions Ltd t/a Key Equity Release
A TV ad for an equity release mortgage product exploited the financial fears of the audience and did not make the risks and suitability of the product sufficiently clear.
-
Versus Law Ltd
A page on the Flight Delay Claim website implied that passengers of flights cancelled or delayed over three hours were guaranteed compensation and did not make clear that there were advertiser’s fees or that consumers could only apply for compensation for Loganair flights through their service if they had first c...
-
Blackford Casks Ltd t/a Whisky Investment Partners
An online display ad, website and two paid-for Facebook posts for a whisky cask investment company made misleading and unsubstantiated investment return claims, did not make the risks involved in whisky investment clear and took advantage of consumers’ inexperience and credulity.
-
London Cask Co Ltd t/a London Cask Company
Two national newspaper ads, a website and a paid-for Google ad for a whisky cask investment company made misleading and unsubstantiated investment return claims and did not make the risks involved in whisky investment clear.
-
One Source Digital Ltd
A paid-for Facebook ad for an ECO funding and government grant scheme misleadingly implied that the company was endorsed by or affiliated with the UK Government.
-
Prime Star Shop Ltd t/a Branshaws
A press ad for an Electric Heater misleadingly implied that their mini heater provided a viable alternative to gas central heating and that it could save consumers money compared to gas central heating.
-
Age Partnership Ltd
A TV ad for an equity release advisor and retirement income service provider misleadingly offered financial advice which they were unauthorised to provide.
-
WeShop Holdings Ltd t/a WeShop
Ads for a shopping app, posted to Instagram Stories, were found to be not clearly labelled as ads, with one ad also making misleading claims about the future value of shares.
Rulings
Our rulings are published every Wednesday and set out on the public record how, following 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, following receipt of a complaint, agreed to amend or withdraw their ad without the need for a formal investigation.
Rulings (17)