The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has issued a ruling on medical device advertising that clarifies that UK Conformity Assessed (UKCA) marking alone does not constitute sufficient evidence for medical efficacy claims. The ASA determined that clinical trial evidence must predate advertising claims, and customer surveys or app data alone cannot substantiate medical claims. The ruling also established that temporary effects of medical devices must be clearly qualified in advertising. Although the ruling was published after the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA 2024) came into force, the ASA clarified that the facts occurred before 7 April 2025, and therefore the previous regime applied.

Four complaints were received by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) concerning whether advertisements and websites falsely implied independence and failed to make their commercial intent clear. The ASA upheld all four complaints.

Three complaints were received by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) concerning whether advertisements for accident claims management companies misled consumers about the nature of the service, including whether the companies handled all accident claims, whether the services were free or would save consumers money and whether consumers should avoid contacting their insurer. The ASA upheld all three complaints.

Fifty complaints concerning advertisements for Warner Bros Entertainment UK Ltd’s cinema releases were considered by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). The rulings examined whether advertising for horror films was socially responsible, appropriately targeted and suitable for display where children were likely to see it. One ruling was not upheld in full, while the other was upheld in part.

: The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has ruled on 14 complaints this week and informally resolved 12 further complaints. There are two general themes of interest in the rulings, namely misleading claims about endorsements or associations with relevant government bodies, and socially irresponsible and offensive claims.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has received a complaint about a YouTube video on the Sidemen’s channel that mentions a vodka brand known as ‘XIX Vodka’. The ASA upheld one issue but did not uphold two other issues.

One complaint was received by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) regarding misleading discount claims on Secret Escapes Ltd's website. The ASA upheld the complaint.

A complaint was received by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) by Unilever UK Ltd on two ads for Fussy Ltd, a deodorant company. Unilever UK Ltd, who owned and manufactured Lynx deodorant products, which it believed were alluded to in the ads, challenged whether the ads discredited or denigrated another product. The ASA upheld the complaint.

Two complaints were received by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) regarding a misleading promotion for free Persil detergent with the purchase of a Samsung washing machine, and a misleading environmental claim made by Wizz Air in a paid Google ad. The ASA upheld the complaints.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has received a complaint regarding a website advertising a gambling promotion, which failed to disclose significant conditions of entry. The complainant challenged whether the ad was misleading. The ASA upheld the complaint.

As part of its ongoing regulatory oversight of alcohol advertising, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) upheld a complaint against Sazerac UK Ltd t/a Hi-Spirits concerning a poster advertisement for Fireball whisky. The ruling addresses the use of ambiguous messaging and imagery that may encourage excessive alcohol consumption, particularly where phrasing and visual cues combine to create a misleading or irresponsible overall impression.

As part of its ongoing regulation of alcohol advertising, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) upheld a complaint against Bestway Retail Ltd t/a Bargain Booze concerning a paid-for Facebook advertisement published during the Valentine’s Day period. The ruling is notable for its emphasis on contextual interpretation in alcohol advertising, particularly the significance the ASA places on the timing, setting and likely consumer perception of an advertisement, regardless of humorous intent.