ASA monthly insights August 2025: Four (or so) rulings you need to know about

Our advertising and marketing team read the Advertising Standard Authority's (ASA) rulings every week and each month select the ones we think you need to know about and of course, one for fun.

The ASA published 32 rulings in August. 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), and cover an eclectic range of products and services.

As is becoming the norm, a significant proportion of the August rulings stem from projects using the ASA’s Active Ad Monitoring system which uses AI to proactively search for online ads that might break the rules.

Consider different perspectives and interpretations

The ASA ruled a TV ad for a shower gel breached the BCAP Code for being likely to cause serious offence by perpetuating a racial stereotype. The ad used the tried and tested formula of “before” and “after” imagery to illustrate the effect of product; depicting itchy, dry and cracked skin in the “before” sequence and smoother, clean skin in the “after” sequence which implied the skin issues were resolved.

In itself, this would be unlikely to raise concerns but the models in the “before” sequence had black skin and the model in the “after” sequence had white skin. 

The advertiser responded that it was dedicated to providing solutions for all types of skin, regardless of background and as part of their commitment to diversity, the ad featured models with varied backgrounds, skin tones and ethnicities. The ad was cleared for air by Clearcast which considered the ad demonstrated the product’s inclusivity.

The ASA considered that the ad was likely to reinforce the negative and offensive racial stereotype that black skin was problematic and that white skin was superior. The fact that the advertiser had not intended this message and it could appear coincidental or pass unnoticed by some viewers did not detract from the fact the ad included a racial stereotype. 

The ruling highlights that simply depicting diversity isn’t sufficient to promote inclusivity, the whole execution needs to be considered in light of different perspectives, interpretations and experiences. The Committees of Advertising Practice have published Advertising Guidance which serves as a useful starting point for assessing potential creative executions in order to avoid racial and ethnic stereotypes in advertising. 

LHF advertising restrictions may not yet apply, but existing HFSS restrictions do

With all the recent activity and announcements relating to restrictions on advertising “less healthy foods” (LHF) you’d be forgiven for forgetting that there are already restrictions on advertising foods deemed High in Fat, Salt or Sugar (HFSS) in accordance with the Department of Health and Social Care's nutrient profiling model, but exist they do.

For example, rule 15.18 restricts HFSS product ads from being directed at people under 16 (through the selection of media or the context in which they appear). HFSS products cannot be advertised in a medium where more than 25% of the audience is under 16 years of age. 

You probably don’t need to be au fait with calculating a food’s nutrient profile to guess that Domino’s Cookies made with Cadbury Creme Egg are an HFSS product. When a paid-for ad for this cookie product was seen during a Minecraft feature on the YouTube channel Milo and Chip a complaint was raised that an HFSS product was being targeted at children through the media/context in which it appeared.

The advertiser was able to show that it had used age-based targeting to exclude signed-in users under the age of 18 and the ad had been excluded from YouTube’s Made For Kids content. However, the ASA noted that Minecraft is very popular with under-16s and the specific content of the video the ad was shown would also appeal to children and upheld the complaint.

It’s important to keep track of these rules because they will still apply to some categories of food which are not caught by the advertising prohibitions which the ASA will enforce from 5 January 2026.

Food supplements cannot make medicinal claims

Last month we covered the ASA’s project work in relation to the promotion of prescription only weight loss injection to the public. This month, the ASA published five rulings against food supplement ads which made unlicensed medicinal claims as well as unauthorised health claims. 

The following claims were all ruled non-compliant for implying a food supplement had medicinal properties without the necessary authorisation:

• "your all-natural Faux-Zempic!"
• "Rapidly Boost GLP-1 Production"
• "like GLP-1 drugs just natural"
• "Natural GLP-1 Secretion Enhancer"
• "Ozempic works, but 20-50% of weight loss is muscle. Is this $1/day solution better? Unlike Ozempic, Curb Crave: Helps preserve lean muscle mass as you lose weight."

Only health claims listed on the Great Britain nutrition and health claims Register can be made for foods including food supplements. Examples of unauthorised health claims made included:

• “supercharge your metabolism”;
• “Supports blood sugar balance”;
• “Helps preserve lean muscle mass as you lose weight”;
• “control cravings, and stay fuller longer” and;
• “ignite weight loss”.

The rulings are part of a project where the ASA has used its AI Active Ad Monitoring system to identify ads which potentially breach the Code, and its likely we can expect more of the same in the coming months.

ASA project on advertising for greener heating and insulation products 

The ASA ruled against the claim “£5,995 Fully Installed Solar” because it would be interpreted as an absolute pricing claim when the product could in fact cost more and found that the ad failed to make clear all significant limitations and qualifications.

The £5,995 price applied to the specific 4.3 kW package which would not be appropriate for all homes. The 4.3kW package would potentially be more expensive if the consumer’s property was more complex. This was material information which should have been included in the ad.  

The project has also flagged advertisements which failed to adequately explain the government funding available for installing insulation products and air source heat pumps. The ASA takes into account the CMA’s guidance on marketing green heating and insultation products when reviewing ads under the Ad Codes. 

And finally, one for a moderate and responsible amount of fun 

The Ad Codes include detailed rules on advertising alcohol in a manner that’s responsible. This includes not implying that a drink may be preferred because of its alcohol content or intoxicating effect.

An ad on social media for gin stating “There’s gin that’s strong. And then there’s Navy Strength” breached this rule because it positioned the product’s higher alcoholic strength as a desirable feature.