The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) published 22 rulings in May. As ever, the rulings assessed compliance under The UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising and Direct & Promotional Marketing (CAP Code) and The UK Code of Broadcast Advertising (BCAP Code). Our advertising team have read them all selected some we think you need to know about.

ASA AI bots are still reviewing gambling ads

In 2025 the ASA used its Active Ad Monitoring system to proactively scan 15.6 million ads across different sectors. This month saw two rulings against two different advertisers on whether or not individuals were considered to be of “strong appeal” to under-18s and therefore not appropriate to be featured in gambling advertising which had been picked up by the monitoring system. In both rulings the ASA referenced CAP guidance on this point which has specific commentary on including footballers in gambling advertising. The guidance advises that UK footballers, who play for top clubs, UK national teams, or in high-profile competitions, and non-UK 'star' footballers, with a significant audience in the UK, are likely to be at high risk of being of strong appeal to under-18s. The CAP guidance also notes that retired footballers who have moved into punditry can be assessed on the basis of their social and other media profile. 

An ad for placing bets on the outcome of the Premier League which featured Thierry Henry was ruled compliant following assessment of evidence provided by the advertiser on his current media profile and professional activities. Whereas ads which featured Harry Kane and Erling Haaland were ruled non-compliant. In that case, the advertiser did not provide evidence and the ASA took the view that there was a high risk of the players being of strong appeal to under-18s. The ASA took into account various factors including Kane’s time at Tottenham Hotspur, Haaland playing for Manchester City and the fact they both played for their national teams.

ASA is using AI to scan for online savings claims

May also saw the results of three investigations which were part of the ASA’s project on Black Friday price promotions which used the Active Ad Monitoring system, and another pricing ruling following a complaint by the Consumers’ Association (Which?). As expected, the ASA referenced the updated guidance from The Chartered Trading Standards Institute Guidance for Traders on Pricing Practices when assessing whether or not the reference prices used to make savings would be considered misleading to consumers. Specifically, that advertisers should consider how long an advertised product has been on sale at the higher price, compared to the period for which the promotional price was offered. 

Providing information in relation to the relevant time periods but not unit sales data was ruled insufficient to substantiate that a price was genuine. Savings claims under the branding of an online marketplace provider were found to be misleading when the marketplace was unable to provide detailed sales or pricing history for the products advertised.

Product classification and presentation is key 

Earlier this year we wrote about the pitfalls of advertising food supplements with reference to weight-loss medication and this month the ASA rulings provided another practical example. Claims on a product’s website were ruled to breach the CAP Code because they were not listed as authorised on the GB NHC Register. The advertiser’s argument that “Natural weight loss”, “a science-backed blend of natural fibres that helps you feel fuller for longer – supporting healthy, sustainable weight loss”, “Weight: Unlock results with reduced cravings” and “GuLP-1 can support healthy, sustainable weight loss alongside a balanced diet and regular movement” were “general weight-management descriptors” was not accepted by the ASA who considered them to be specific health claims requiring authorisation. 

Although the product contained glucomannan, which can carry an authorised health claim, the claims referred to the product as a whole and not glucomannan. The ads also made comparisons with GLP-1 agonist injections, which are prescription only medicines, so were found to breach the CAP Code for presenting an unlicensed product as having medicinal properties. 

Need to hold evidence for all objective claims

The ASA has published a number of rulings as part of its project on companies offering Continuing Professional Development (CPD) accreditation services. This month saw the conclusion of two more investigations, both stemming from competitor complaints. This is perhaps unsurprising given two different companies were making the claims to be the “UK’s leading body” and the “UK-leading body”. The ASA agreed with the complainant that this was a comparison against all competitors in the market and the advertisers needed to not only hold evidence for the claim but also provide sufficient information for readers to verify it for themselves. In the absence of appropriate evidence and verification information, the claims were ruled non-compliant. 

Affiliate links need to be flagged as ads

The ASA requires that affiliate links need to be labelled as ads. In this instance the content creator had bought the product and then added an affiliate link in a video about it, but following the ASA's longstanding policy, the ruling was published against the seller of the decorative cushion product, not the content creator for failing to make the commercial intent clear.

And finally…

The ASA assesses outcome, not intention. So whilst the advertiser argued that “why have romance when you can have rum” was within the cultural trend of playful rejection of traditional Valentine’s Day clichés, the ASA considered that the ad implied that drinking alcohol could be used as a substitute for romance and could overcome feelings of loneliness and therefore breached the CAP Code.