The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has received a complaint regarding Shop TJC’s teleshopping ad, which made a number of medical claims about a blue and red light therapy electric toothbrush. The claims were not substantiated and the product itself was not a licensed product by the Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). Medical claims made in regard to an unlicensed medical product are not permitted under the BCAP Code and the ad was therefore in breach. The ASA also received complaints regarding Huel and The Skinny Food co, which both made nutrition health claims and general health claims in their ads, in breach of the CAP Code. The ASA upheld all complaints.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has found that a paid-for Meta ad for the Mazda2 Hybrid car made misleading claims that gave an impression of the vehicle’s environmental impact following investigation using its Active Ad Monitoring AI system. This ruling forms part of the ASA’s work on electric vehicle advertising and environmental claims.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has investigated three organisations for ads that contained types of harmful online choice architecture practices (dark patterns), including pressure selling, hidden information, pre-selection and roach motels (subscription traps). The first ruling related to the Oak Furniture Superstore website, challenging whether it failed to make the basis of a promotion clear and made misleading and unsubstantiated savings claims. The second ruling raised concerns with a paid-for ad on X for Nike Retail BV’s trainers, and whether it was misleading by omitting information about a promotion. The third ruling questioned whether a website for NOW TV, owned by Sky UK Ltd, was misleading as it failed to make it sufficiently clear that free trials, which were automatically added to the basket, would auto-renew at a fee unless cancelled. The ASA upheld all complaints.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has released 5 rulings as part of its work to investigate whether paid-for gambling-like ads are misleading. In the case of Dataverse Co. Limited, the ASA investigated whether three paid-for Tik Tok gambling-like ads were obviously identifiable as a marketing communication and whether the ads implied that the gaming apps were gambling products in which real-world money or tangible prizes could be won and withdrawn. The ASA upheld the complaint.

As part of its regulatory oversight of comparative advertising, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) upheld complaints against Hotpoint UK Appliances Ltd concerning claims on its website that it was ‘The UK’s Most Trusted Appliance Brand’ and ‘THE UK’S MOST TRUSTED major domestic appliance brand’. The ruling addresses whether the basis and scope of comparative claims are presented clearly enough for consumers to understand how they were substantiated.

Two complaints were received by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) regarding an email from Maki Online Services Ltd t/a Nino Apply, which misrepresented the consequences of not renewing a Biometric Residence Permit (BRP) and omitted information about the availability of a free eVisa. The ASA upheld both complaints.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) had identified an ad for a supplement company, KeyForHer, through its Active Ad Monitoring system as one which breaks the Code through its claims about the treatment of symptoms of menopause. The ASA upheld the complaint.

One complaint was received by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) about Storage Giant Ltd’s advertising claims regarding price guarantees and quoted costs. The ASA upheld the complaint.

A complaint was received by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) about a paid-for YouTube ad for Domino’s Cadbury Creme Egg cookie product, which appeared during Minecraft-themed content on the Milo and Chip channel. The ASA upheld the complaint.

A complaint was received by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) regarding a press ad for Biovit Miracle Cranberry Tablets in the Daily Mail claiming to ‘promote a healthy urinary tract’ as a ‘drug-free natural remedy’ to support against bladder infections. The ad also featured three testimonials from customers, who all praised the product for improving their bladder related issues, which the ASA concluded constituted a health claim to treat, prevent or cure human disease in breach of the CAP code. It found that the featured claims were not authorised on the GB nutrition and health claims register and also made misleading claims about savings. The ASA upheld the complaint.

A complaint was received by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), challenging whether a paid-for Facebook ad for Hike Footwear made misleading claims about money-back guarantee. The ASA also challenged whether two ads for the footwear company made medical claims for unlicensed products, and included genuine testimonials. The ASA upheld all three issues.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has received complaints regarding ads for loans offered for Christmas, which involved two paid-for Meta posts, which irresponsibly encouraged consumers to spend more than they could afford by taking out a loan to fund Christmas spending. The ASA upheld both complaints.