ASA monthly insights February 2026: 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.

Environmental claim evidence needs to relate to the product

Following a competitor complaint to the ASA, two baby product companies were unable to adequately substantiate environmental claims such as “Kinder to the planet […] protecting the planet”, “Protecting your world, naturally” and “Sustainable”. In one instance the basis of the claim (bamboo fibre) was not made clear. The ASA acknowledged that a life cycle analysis for bamboo toilet tissue made wider observations about the impact of bamboo generally, but the analysis for toilet tissue was not cross applicable to nappies which are disposed of differently. Similarly, evidence provided for face wipes was not cross applicable to baby wipes. 

Describing a product as biodegradable was ruled misleading because although viscose used in the baby wipes would biodegrade into carbon dioxide in home composting conditions, at a temperature of 28 degrees Celsius, and in soil and in marine environments, evidence was not provided for the biodegradability of the wipes as a whole product. Both these rulings are reminders of the need to match the evidence to the claims and to the product (which is the case regardless of the type of claim).

Unlicensed e-cigarettes and multibuy offers don’t mix 

The advertising of unlicensed e-cigarettes containing nicotine is restricted by law. The Ad Codes reflect the legal position and ads for products which have the direct or indirect effect of promoting nicotine-containing e-cigarettes and their components cannot run on online media unless the product is licensed as a medicine.

The UK Vaping Industry Association Ltd complained against seven e-commerce listings for unlicensed products, all of which included multibuy offers (e.g. “buy 5 get 5 free”), bundles and other limited time promotions. Whilst factual descriptions including pricing can be made on an e-commerce listing for unlicensed e-cigarettes, this does not extend to promotional offers and presentation. The information went beyond being merely factual and the ASA ruled the ads in breach of the CAP Code. 

ASA ad reg bots are still hunting down POM ads

The ASA is still using its AI Active Ad Monitoring System to find advertisements online which promote prescription only medicines (POMs) to the public. February saw six rulings on this point, some of which featured influencers. Claims which were ruled to promote a POM to the public included explicit references such as:

• “What I eat in a day on Mounjaro”.
• “go see if you are eligible for Voy’s medicated weight loss”.
• “Time for my weekly jab! Onto the 7.5mg! […] #mounjarouk”.

One ruling related to an advertisement feature, which did not reference POMs explicitly by name included references such as “How do prescription-based treatments support weight loss?”.

Some of the rulings related to refer-a-friend schemes which provided discount codes for a POM and thereby breached the CAP Code. It’s probably worth noting that although medicines which are not prescriptions only can be advertised to the public, celebrities cannot be used to endorse medicines. 

Regardless of sector competitor comparisons always need care

A travel company making the claim “We compared. We conquered […] Deal of the Week We’re £592 cheaper” in an ad which specifically referenced a competitor’s holiday was found misleading following a complaint from the competitor. The ad made a claim that the holidays were “identical” which meant that they had put themselves in the position of making a like-for-like claim, and given they had not compared identical components of the holiday (which were available), the headlines were misleading. In addition, the ad didn’t make clear how quickly consumers needed to act to take up the promotional offer and failed to provide verification information.

The ASA upheld a competitor complaint against an advertiser which had included a comparison table on its website listing various features of three software products, including the competitor’s. The table had ticks under all the features for the advertiser and only some features for the others. Unsurprisingly, the ASA took the view that a cross instead of a tick would indicate that the complainant’s software did not include the feature.

Although the ASA’s investigation showed that there was accuracy in the features listed, it also noted that features of the complainant’s product had been omitted. There was no explanation that the elements compared in the ad had been chosen based on the advertiser’s opinion. By omitting key information regarding the competitor’s features, including those with equivalent functionality, the ad was ruled to be misleading. The ad also breached the CAP Code for failing to include information to enable the claims to be verified. 

And finally, subtleties of violence against synths versus humans likely to be lost on kids

Ads cannot cause fear or distress without justifiable reason and should be targeted appropriately. This means that the likely audience of the ad, not the film being promoted, needs to be considered before placing ads.

The ASA upheld complaints that a digital video poster for the 12A film “Predator Badlands” which featured a menacing alien perpetrating violence would frighten children. The ASA did not consider that a character was a “synth” not a human detracted from the fact the ad appeared to show a large alien-like figure dismembering a human-looking figure. Younger children would be frightened regardless of the distinction.