ASA - first rulings under the new “less healthy food” advertising restrictions

The ASA has published its first set of rulings applying the new restrictions on the advertising of less healthy food and drink (LHF), which came into force on 5 January 2026. These decisions are an important early indication of how the ASA intends to interpret and enforce the new regime in practice.

Two complaints against major retailers Iceland and Lidl were upheld

Lidl had engaged an influencer, Emma Kearney, who had posted a video on Instagram promoting various food products from an in-store Lidl bakery. Lidl confirmed that the post was a paid ad, but said that the intention was for the ad to be brand led. However, visual close ups and verbal descriptions of the Pain Suisse and Cheese Pretzel products meant that consumers would reasonably think that the ad was for those products. The video featured almond croissants in the background (on a labelled tray) but the ASA said that the reference to those products was “incidental and fleeting” and that consumers would not reasonably be expected to identify the ad as being for that product. The Cheese Pretzel product was not a LHF, however the Pain Suisse was, therefore the ad was in breach of the CAP code.

Iceland had paid for a banner ad and display ad on the Daily Mail website. The banner ad showed a beef roasting joint, vegetable spring rolls, a tub of Swizzels sweets and a pack of chicken skewers. The display ad showed images of a beef roasting joint, a tube of Pringles Sour Cream and Onion crisps, a tub of Lurpak spreadable butter, a packet of Chupa Chups Laces, a bag of Chooee DiscoStix and a bag of Haribo Elf Surprises. Each image also included a price. Some of the products were not LHF, however the Swizzels sweets, Chupa Chups Laces, Chooee Disco Stix and Haribo Elf Surprises were (unsurprisingly) LHF and therefore the ads were paid ads for identifiable LHF products and so breached the CAP Code.

Two complaints against German Doner Kebab and On the Beach were not upheld

A TV ad for On the Beach (broadcast before 9pm) featured a family arriving at an airport and included a shot of the son taking a chocolate ring doughnut with the voiceover of the father saying: “Fill your boots, son. Slap on your best smug face.” A single viewer complained that this was an ad for an identifiable LHF. The ASA acknowledged that On The Beach was an online travel agency and not a food or drink manufacturer or retailer. However, the legislation underpinning the Code rule does not specify that its requirements apply only to businesses involved in the manufacture or sale of food or drink. The ASA therefore had to consider whether consumers who viewed the ad could reasonably be expected to identify that the ad was for a LHF. The ASA found that consumers who viewed the ad could not reasonably be expected to identify that the ad was for the doughnut. Rather, they would see that the ad was for the perk of free airport lounge access if they purchased a five-star holiday from On The Beach. They therefore concluded that the ad was not for an identifiable LHF.

Finally, an Instagram post by an influencer for German Doner Kebab (GDK) Romford, showed the influencer at the front of a store saying: “A brand new store, German Doner Kebab, bang in the heart of Romford. Let’s go and have a look”. He then went to the counter and ordered an “Inferno OG chicken” with salads and sauces, a rice bowl with chicken and a doner burrito. Footage showed the menu items being prepared. He then sat down in the restaurant and tasted all three items. GDK confirmed that the post was a paid ad but also provided information to the ASA to show that the foods ordered by the influencer were not LHF. The ASA also considered whether consumers who viewed the ad could reasonably expected to identify that the ad was also for Diet Coke. A can was visible while the influencer was tasting the three products, but was at the edge of the frame and was in and out of shot as the camera moved. It was not referenced by the influencer and was shown only when viewers’ attention would be directed to the visuals of the influencer tasting the menu items and on his commentary. The ASA considered its appearance was incidental and consumers could not reasonably be expected to identify that the ad was for Diet Coke. Additionally, Diet Coke is not a LHF. Overall therefore the ad was not in breach of the CAP Code.