The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) published 37 rulings in September. 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). Browne Jacobson’s advertising team have read them all and selected some we think you need to know about.

ASA applies social responsibility rule to food ads

An ad for a product the ASA categorised as a food supplement was ruled to encourage or condone irresponsible dietary habits by suggesting replacing conventional food with the product was nutritionally appropriate. Although the ad did not explicitly recommend that consumers replace all conventional food with a food supplement, it did reference an individual who had only eaten Huel and had won an ultramarathon race by a significant lead. The ASA considered this anecdote presented the individual's exclusive consumption of Huel positively and the overall effect wasn’t cautionary. The ASA also noted that the ad didn’t make it clear that the products are 400 kcal per serving so multiple servings throughout the day would be necessary. 

The ad was ruled to contain a non-authorised specific health claim relating to endurance and athletic performance and the claim “gives you everything that you do need” was ruled to breach the CAP Code because it was considered to be a general health claim which would need to be accompanied by a relevant specific authorised claim and was not. Only specific health claims listed as authorised on the GB NHC Register can be made in relation to food and drink in Great Britain.

ASA challenged social media ads for alcohol promotion

Staying with irresponsible consumption the ASA challenged ads for bottomless beer promotions: “Celebrate with 90 minutes of unlimited fresh beer”. The advertiser considered that the ads described a fixed-price, time-limited hospitality offer rather than encouraging consumers to maximise their alcohol consumption and that the 12 beers featured in one ad were intended to show the options available and not encourage people to drink 12 beers. The advertiser also argued that that a video of a woman running to glass of beer was intended to depict enthusiasm not an encouragement to drink excessively. The ASA disagreed and ruled that the ads implied, condoned or encouraged excessive consumption of alcohol. 

Free breakfast with strings attached triggers the LHF restrictions

Various 'less healthy food' (LHF) rulings, since the prohibition of paid-for LHF advertising online came into force, have featured influencers. However, in each of those instances the commercial link was confirmed. September saw the first ruling which looked at whether the influencer had been paid to post the content. CAP guidance on the advertising of foods that are categorised as less healthy notes that in:

An influencer posted content which featured the brands handle and images of identifiable 'less healthy' food products from the restaurant’s menu, after being invited to the launch of the new breakfast menu. The restaurant argued they had had no control over the post and there had been no contractual arrangement in place. However, correspondence from the PR company showed that the invitation stated that the experience was offered “in exchange” for a minimum of three Instagram Story frames and a grid carousel or reel tagging the restaurant account. The influencer was also provided with a press release with key messaging. The ASA ruled that the restaurant had sufficient control over the post for it to be a marketing communication and because it was a paid-for ad on the internet which featured an identifiable 'less healthy' food and therefore breached the CAP Code. The ad was also non-compliant for failing to make its commercial intent clear.

Environmental claims are still under the spotlight

Two travel companies made environmental claims in paid search engine ads which were picked up by the ASA’s AI Active Ad Monitoring system, generating investigations by the ASA. The claim “Eco Resort” was found misleading because the basis of the claim was not explained in the ad itself and steps had not been taken to provide the information by other means. The same applied to “Eco Resort” and “Eco Hotel”. In each case the ASA noted the elements of the accommodation which had formed the basis of the claim without expressly stating that they were sufficient in its eyes to back the claim up.

And finally…

An ad which made various efficacy claims for a bracelet relating to losing weight, reducing joint pain and other claims, of which we think “boosts desire” is the only one we can safely repeat here, was ruled non-compliant by the ASA. On investigation it was found that the claims related to other products and were not intended for the bracelet. Regardless, the ASA ruled that the claims had not been substantiated and were misleading.