ASA monthly insights March 2026: Rulings you need to know about

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) published 24 rulings in March. 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 the ones we think you need to know about and of course, one for fun.

Competitor complaint against comparative claims upheld

An ad for coffee pods which compared pricing and available disposal methods breached comparative advertising requirements. 

Making a monthly cost comparison based on different amounts of product was a breach of the CAP Code because from the way the comparison was presented consumers would understand that the amount of product being compared was the same. Additionally, when calculated on a per pod basis the competitor product was cheaper and the comparison did not explain that the advertiser’s products were subject to a discount via its subscription scheme. 

The advertiser was able to substantiate that its pods were “home-compostable”. However, the claims that its competitor pods were “non-compostable” and “ends up in landfill” were ruled misleading because the competing pods could be recycled (and the recycling scheme included home pick-up) so landfill was not the only end-of-life option for the pods.

Social media ads must comply with alcohol rules

As part of its Active AI monitoring work, the ASA published two rulings in March which picked up on the restrictions of advertising alcohol. One related to claims about the product and one related to the depiction of under 25s in an alcohol ad.

Factual statements can be made about the composition of alcohol products, but ads must not imply a preference for a drink due to its alcohol content. The ASA found that the phrase “full strength", in the context of “We’ve cracked the code…” and “Don’t compromise on taste or ABV…", fell foul of the Code.

Consumers would likely understand that the advertiser’s products were preferable to “standard” drinks, as they offered the same strength, taste, and ABV for fewer calories. References to fewer calories were in themselves problematic because the only nutritional claims permitted for alcoholic drinks are that they are “low-alcohol”, “reduced alcohol”, or “reduced energy". The ASA also found that consumers would understand the phrases “better choices that fit your lifestyle” and “Guilt free” to mean that the products were a healthier option. Health claims are not permitted for alcohol products therefore the claims were in breach of the Code.

Three social media posts by a cider brand, as part of its 'Wavemakers' student ambassador programme, were investigated. Each ad featured groups of students holding cans of the product and each story had either up-beat music, emojis and/or the hashtag #studentwavemakers. 

People shown drinking alcohol or playing a significant role in an alcohol ad cannot be, or look, under 25 years old. Whilst some UK university students are over 25, the ASA noted that a large proportion of university students would be under 25, the people featured in the stories had a “youthful appearance” and the hashtag #studentwavermakers reinforced the impression the people featured were under 25 and the ads were ruled non-compliant. 

The advertiser confirmed it had withdrawn the campaign and reported it was undertaking an audit of social media channels including refresher training.

Two republished rulings in March 

We previously covered the social media gambling ad which was ruled compliant in November 2025. The decision remains unchanged following Independent Review but the ASA has provided more information on editorial and ad content. 

Interestingly the second republished ruling doesn’t reference the ASA’s Independent Review system so it’s not clear why this ruling was revisited, however, the result remains the same and it gives us an opportunity to talk about ultra processed foods ('UPF'). The advertisement for a “plant-based wholefood supplement” made the claim “This is a supplement revolution. No ultra-processed pills, no shakes, just real food”. The advertiser argued that the point being made was that the supplement was not in pill form, and the reference to “ultra-processed” was in relation to pills and not a claim that their product contained no UPFs. 

The ASA looked at the ad as a whole, including the imagery of seeds. It noted that as there was no single, universally accepted definition of “ultra-processed”, the understanding of the target audience of the ad would need to be assessed and UPF would likely be understood as products or ingredients created using complex or industrial processes not replicable in a typical domestic kitchen. “Wholefood” was likely to reference food prepared through simple steps. 

For the most part the ingredients weren’t subject to complex processes, but the ASA considered chicory root inulin and nutritional yeast flakes were produced using complex processes not replicable in a typical domestic kitchen, the ad was ruled in breach of the Code for being likely to mislead. 

Manufacturing claims need substantiation

Staying with ingredients sourcing, the ASA didn’t accept the advertiser’s position that consumers wouldn’t take the claim “Food-Grown” as a literal description of the manufacturing process instead taking the view that it would likely be understood to mean ingredients derived from food or natural sources. 

The ASA noted that the advertiser’s interpretation of “Food-Grown” was not explained in the ad and that an initial nutrient was a standalone compound at the start of the process rather than sourced from food or natural sources. Some supplement formulations had plant-derived nutrients, but the ingredients lists of some products indicated nutrients produced by chemical synthesis. On this basis the claim was ruled misleading.

Foods cannot make medicinal claims

An ad which referred to chronic dehydration and its symptoms was ruled non-compliant for making claims to prevent, treat or cure human disease. It also breached the CAP Code for making an unauthorised health claim in relation to rehydration. Authorised health claims which can be made in the UK are publicly available on the GB NHC Register.

And finally, one for fun – the pawdacity 

An ad for a battery-operated toy puppy was ruled misleading after 22 consumer complaints to the ASA. The ad highlighted how realistic the toy was (“it's like having a real puppy”), but used AI to generate visuals of the product. The AI version of the toy depicted did not reflect the functionality and appearance of the toy on sale (as is highlighted in the media coverage on this ruling).