ASA rulings offer early clues on how the new “less healthy” advertising restrictions will be enforced

Yesterday, the UK Advertising Standards Authority published its first four rulings relating to the UK’s new restrictions on advertising less healthy food and drink (LHFD) products in certain media contexts (including paid-for space online). These restrictions entered into force in January 2026, following a short delay whilst the Government clarified the scope of an exemption for brand advertising. 

Grounded in the ASA’s December 2025 guidance, the decisions provide some useful early clues into how the ASA is approaching key issues of “identifiability” and “brand advertising”. 

Our three key takeaways from these first rulings are:

1. Context is critical for brand advertising: A complaint against an ad for a travel agency, which focused on the benefits of its free airport lounge access for certain holidays, was not upheld even though it showed a child selecting a chocolate doughnut from a buffet (On The Beach). The ASA considered that the brief depiction of the doughnut was incidental, and merely illustrated an example of a non-specific and non-purchasable food that may be available in an airport lounge. Overall, it considered that the advert would have been interpreted by consumers as showing the benefits that may be available with the agency’s airport lounge pass benefit, rather than a promotion for any specific food or drink products visible in the advert. It remains to be seen how the ASA approaches the brand advertising exemption for campaigns run by food and drink companies. 

The specificity with which products are depicted can also undermine claims that an advert was intended to be “brand-led”. Featuring a product’s image (for example, a packaged food product (Iceland Foods), or a close up of a specific, named item that is generally available for sale (Lidl)) alongside its retail name and the price for which it can be purchased will increase the risk that the ASA will consider that consumers would interpret the ad as one for a specific, identifiable food product, rather than for the brand more generally. Where specific products are shown or described, it becomes even more critical to ensure that the relevant products are not within scope of the restrictions (see further point 2 below). 

The ASA did, helpfully, confirm in two of the rulings (GDK International, Lidl) that short, fleeting, background or incidental shots of a product will not necessarily mean that consumers would reasonably interpret the advert as being for that product. This is particularly so where the product is not specifically referred to in the voiceover or any accompanying text, and where viewers’ attention would be directed to other aspects of the advert by the voiceover commentary.

2. Ensure you hold evidence on the nutrient profiling technical scores of featured products: Before featuring any specific, identifiable food or drink products in advertising, the rulings make clear that – in line with the ordinary CAP and BCAP Code requirements for substantiation – the ASA expects advertisers to hold evidence of their nutrient profiling technical scores. “Gaps” in the nutritional evidence provided by suppliers will not provide a credible defence for an advertiser (Iceland Foods). In contrast, holding good evidence before an ad is run that a particular food does not meet the nutritional threshold to qualify as a high fat, salt or sugar (HFSS) product should mean that the product falls outside the scope of the advertising restrictions altogether, without any further assessment required on whether the product is within the “less healthy” product categories or is “identifiable” within the advertisement (GDK International).

3. Provide clear instructions when working with influencers: Giving clear guidance to influencers on which products can be shown or described in their content (and which should be avoided) can mitigate the risk that identifiable LHFD products are depicted in the advert (GDK International). The rulings also suggest that advertisers should consider whether their screening or influencer content approval processes are sufficiently robust to enable them to require the content to be edited before publication, to ensure that any footage or voice-over material is compliant. 

To discuss these developments or how they may affect upcoming campaigns, please reach out to the authors.