Dodgy wellness ads slipping through the cracks on social media, Which? warns

Which? is warning social media users to watch out for dodgy health and beauty ads, after it finds adverts on Facebook and Instagram for products that make false claims about their effectiveness or endorsement by medical bodies - or simply never arrive. 

False health claims on social media are rife – from bogus medical advice to fake ads impersonating real doctors and anti-aging products with exaggerated benefits.

A snapshot Which? investigation on Facebook and Instagram in March 2025 found sponsored adverts either making false medical claims, impersonating doctors, pretending to be endorsed by medical bodies or potentially not delivering the items they claim to sell, while still taking customers’ money.

Among these was an advert targeted at diabetics promoting a “world-first” non-invasive glucose-monitoring detox wristband - which is not a genuine product. Diabetics usually monitor their blood sugar levels with either a finger prick monitor or a continuous glucose monitor but both of these products use a needle or small sensor under the skin to take readings. 

Denise* saw a no-fingerprick glucose monitor advertised on Facebook for £19.95. She said: “I’m a Type 2 diabetic and being able to track my blood sugar without having to prick my finger was attractive, as my fingers get sore from testing.”

However, when it arrived, she was shocked to see that she had been sent a pulse oximeter – which measures your blood oxygen levels – instead of the glucose monitor she had ordered. 

Denise said she saw the advert again on Facebook, as well as others making similar claims. Which? saw the advert and website promoting the fake glucose monitor. While the website claimed it had a 4.8-star average on Trustpilot, the actual Trustpilot reviews had a 2.4-star average and many customers complained of receiving products that did not work or being sent wrong items.

The consumer champion also found three adverts promoting a bee venom cream which falsely claimed it was developed by the Medical and Health Care products Regulatory Agency and recommended by the British Association of Dermatologists and Allergy UK - who said they were not associated with the product. 

Two of the ads were posted from Facebook accounts impersonating Dr Emma Craythorne, a well-known dermatologist with over 150,000 Instagram followers. Dr Craythorne is not associated with the ads and said the claims made by these adverts, such as that the cream could cure skin tags and remove wrinkles in one week, were complete ‘nonsense’.

Dr Craythorne said she had also been impersonated in other dodgy health ads. She had a patient reach out to her about a blood glucose-monitoring device for diabetes promoted by an account impersonating her. The patient wanted to buy it for his wife, who is diabetic and finds drawing blood painful. 

She said: “My team and I have sent Meta countless emails and it hasn’t taken them seriously. These scams target the unwell and desperate, as well as those whose family members and friends are sick.”

Other dodgy health ads uncovered by the consumer champion included four adverts for weight-loss patches that claimed to burn fat by reducing inflammation as well as by curbing appetite. Weight-loss patches have not been proven safe or effective and buyers on Trustpilot complained of not receiving orders. 

Which? also saw an advert promoting prostate treatment drops claiming to eliminate prostatitis - which should be treated with antibiotics - and an ad selling an Oscillating Positive Expiratory Pressure (OPEP) device, which is used to treat sinusitis, asthma, chronic coughs and colds. OPEP devices should only be prescribed following assessment by a respiratory specialist nurse or physiotherapist. 

While many of these ads were taken down fairly quickly by Meta, the Facebook profiles posting the ads remained live until Which? shared these profiles with Meta. These findings highlight just how rife health misinformation is on social media. 

Some of these ads could be caught by the Online Safety Act’s fraudulent advertising duties, which will make Facebook and Instagram responsible for preventing this content from appearing on their sites. The current timetable suggests the platforms in scope of the fraudulent advertising duties in the Act may not be held accountable until 2027. The regulations must be implemented without further delay or the government risks letting millions more fall victim to scams and dodgy ads online. 

Lisa Webb, Which? Consumer Law Expert, said: 

“For far too long, some of the biggest online platforms have been getting away with letting scammers run rampant on their sites. 

“While the Online Safety Act could mean action can be taken over some of these ads, platforms should not wait for these rules to come into effect - they should act now to block these ads appearing in the first place and stop the spread of misinformation. 

“In the meantime, consumers should be wary of sponsored ads for health and beauty products on social media and check to see if the company is legitimate before clicking on any links or sharing any personal details.”

-ENDS-

Notes to editors

Research 

In March 2025, Which? found 12 dodgy health and beauty ads on Facebook and Instagram - three promoting diabetes products, three promoting bee venom creams, four ads promoting weight-loss patches, one promoting prostate treatment and one promoting an OPEP device. 

The investigation was also published in Which? Tech magazine.

*Denise is not her real name.

Which?’s advice on how to spot dodgy health and beauty ads on social media 

1. If an advert looks suspicious, you can use TinEye (tineye.com) or Google Image Search to see if the images in the advert are used elsewhere. 
2. Hover over URLs before clicking to check if it matches the company’s website.
3. Use a tool such as who.is to look up domain name registrations. A recent registration could be a scam website. 
4. Check if the product or medicine is registered with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) by visiting products.mhra.gov.uk or pard.mhra.gov.uk.

Right of reply

Meta said that they don’t allow fraudulent activity and work closely with law enforcement to support investigations and keep scammers off their platforms. 

They said reviewing ads from millions of advertisers globally against their advertising standards is essential, but not without challenges, and people can report ads they believe violate our policies by clicking the three dots in the upper right hand corner of the ad. 

These reports are an important signal to Meta’s ad review systems, and may prompt a re-review of the ad. This feedback also helps to improve their policies and enforcement.

Which? reached out to the profiles behind the ads at the time of its research but did not receive any replies prior to publication of the article.

About Which?

Which? is the UK’s consumer champion, here to make life simpler, fairer and safer for everyone. Our research gets to the heart of consumer issues, our advice is impartial, and our rigorous product tests lead to expert recommendations. We’re the independent consumer voice that influences politicians and lawmakers, investigates, holds businesses to account and makes change happen. 

As an organisation we’re not for profit and all for making consumers more powerful.The information in this press release is for editorial use by journalists and media outlets only. Any business seeking to reproduce information in this release should contact the Which? Endorsement Scheme team at endorsementscheme@which.co.uk.