ASA Cracks Down Early: Lessons from the ASA’s First Less Healthy Food Advertising Rules

The Advertising Standards Agency (“ASA”) has issued its first enforcement rulings under the UK’s new restrictions on the advertising of “less healthy” food and drink (“LHF”). In this short blog, we look to three recent rulings and consider the wider impact for producers and marketers, particularly in the context of online display advertising and influencer marketing.

The new LHF advertising regime: a brief reminder

From 5 January 2026, the CAP and BCAP Codes introduced new restrictions on the advertising of “less healthy” food and drink products. In broad terms, the rules prohibit:

• paid-for online advertising of identifiable LHF products at any time, and
• TV and on-demand advertising of LHF products before 9pm.

A food or drink is “less healthy” if both of the following apply:

1. it falls within one of the specified food categories (such as confectionery or sweetened bakery under law; and
2. it is classified as high in fat, salt and sugar (HFSS) under the Department of Health and Social Care's Nutrient Profiling Technical Guidance.

Iceland Foods Ltd – mixed product ads still carry risk

Iceland ran programmatic display ads on the Daily Mail website featuring a mix of Iceland products, including confectionery items from brands including Swizzels, Chupa Chups, and Haribo. Those items were all HFSS and fell within Category 4 (confectionery including chocolates and sweets).

Although the ads also included products which were not restricted (such as a beef roasting joint and Lurpak butter) the presence of the non-compliant products was enough to make the ad as a whole breach the Code.

Bite Back, a youth-led campaign group in the UK that frequently uses the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) complaints process to challenge adverts promoting food high in fat, salt, and sugar (HFSS) that target children. Bite Back challenged the Iceland display advert on the basis

Lidl Northern Ireland Ltd – “brand led” intent is not decisive

Lidl paid a social media influencer to post an Instagram video promoting its new "bakery special guests" range, featuring close-ups and descriptions of a pain suisse and a cheese pretzel. Lidl said the ad was meant to be "brand-led" rather than focus on individual product lines, but the ASA was not persuaded.

The cheese pretzel was not HFSS so this was fine. However the ASA found that repeated close-up shots, verbal descriptions and tasting footage of a pain suisse (a product classified as HFSS and within a restricted category) meant the ad effectively promoted an identifiable LHF product.

It’s important to note that almond croissants also appeared briefly in the background of the ad, but since its appearance in the footage was “incidental and fleeting", and they were never verbally mentioned, they were not considered by the ASA as having contributed to breaching the Code.

GDK International Ltd, t/a German Doner Kebab

This ruling focussed on whether a paid influencer Instagram post promoting the opening of a German Doner Kebab (GDK) restaurant breached the new CAP Code restrictions on advertising “less healthy” (HFSS) food online. The ad featured an influencer ordering and tasting several menu items, alongside a promotion offering free kebabs to customers. The key issue was whether the content amounted to a paid-for online ad for identifiable less healthy food products, which is prohibited under the new rules. The complaint was not upheld and the ASA concluded that:

1. The ad clearly focused on four specific menu items (three meals plus the junior kebab featured in the giveaway).
2. Robust evidence (nutrient profiling calculations) demonstrated that each of those items was not HFSS.
3. As a result, the ad did not promote “less healthy” products, and fell outside the scope of the restriction.

Key Takeaways

• It’s about what consumers see, not what you intended. If a product is named, shown in close-up or described, the ASA will treat it as identifiable.
• One bad apple spoils the ad. A single identifiable LHF product in an otherwise compliant multi-product ad is enough to breach the Code.
• Outsourcing ad placement does not outsource responsibility. Data gaps, technical errors or third party involvements are unlikely to excuse non-compliance.
• “Incidental and fleeting” is a very narrow caveat. The almond croissants in the Lidl ad were only given a pass because they were never mentioned and appeared so briefly in the background. You should not seek to rely on this caveat unless the product appearance is genuinely fleeting. Marketers should therefore exercise caution before relying on this precedent. It is a delicate balance to tread – product images that give prominence to a HFSS product, describe that product or show it being eaten are more likely to fall within scope of the restriction.
• Pro-active ad monitoring is here: As reported in our recent blog post covering reference pricing, much of the ASA's work now starts with its AI-led Active Ad Monitoring service, which scans digital ads, although that didn't directly drive these recent enforcement ruling, this is certainly an area that the ASA is targeting. Marketers should be mindful of this enhanced and pro-active enforcement approach and should carefully monitor proposed advertising images and slogans to ensure a compliant approach.
• The persuasive impact of campaign groups: Bite Back has used the ASA complaints process before and actively pushes for stronger rules — so more challenges from them and other public health campaigners are likely.
• Influencing compliance: the ASA considers that brands as responsible for ads placed on their behalf. Brands should therefore exercise control over content produced by third parties, including social media influencers. Appropriate pre-market content controls, third-party contracts, briefings and training should all be built into marketing policies and procedures

Practical compliance tips

For businesses selling or promoting food and drink, these early rulings provide some practical lessons.

1. Assess nutrient profile

The ASA has published useful guidance to complement the new CAP and BCAP Codes on the advertising of “less healthy” food and drink products came into force. The guidance details various tests and exemptions relevant to the ASA’s approach to assessing individual ads under the relevant Code rules.

If a brand can demonstrate that a product does not meet the criteria of a LHF then clearly the restriction will not apply. Nutrient profiling should therefore be the starting point and marketing teams should work in parallel with regulatory personnel involved in formulating new products to ensure that each product is correctly positioned in line with the new rules. This was something that German Doner Kebab could evidence this for the products shown in its advertising. As a result, the ASA did not uphold that complaint.

2. Strengthen internal data governance. Accurate and up-to-date nutritional information is essential, particularly where ads are placed programmatically. Audit your full range and keep it updated. Make sure to cross-reference HFSS status against the statutory category to work out which products are actually caught.

3. Ensure ops chain compliance. Ensure all third parties involved in marketing and advertising (i.e. ad agencies, networks, influencers) know the rules and which products are off-limits.

4. Extra scrutiny should be given to multi-product ads. Featuring restricted and unrestricted products together increases the likelihood of a breach if any LHF item is identifiable.

5. Be cautious with influencer content. Influencer ads are treated as paid-for marketing. Control scripts, visuals and edits to avoid unintentional product focus.

Final thoughts

These first LHF rulings show the ASA taking a robust approach to the new rules. Particularly for retailers with large product ranges or complex advertising supply chains internal processes are critical in ensuring compliance.

If you need help reviewing your advertising strategy or navigating the LHF rules, please get in touch.