Huel ASA ruling: A lesson on keeping control of your messaging

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has upheld complaints against advertising by Huel featuring Spencer Matthews, in a decision that delivers important lessons for brands using influencers and ambassadors, particularly where health and nutrition claims are involved.

The ruling also highlights a broader issue for investors and businesses acquiring consumer-facing brands - advertising compliance and marketing practices should form part of the due diligence exercise, rather than being treated as a purely operational issue after completion.

What happened?

The ads featured a podcast-style conversation between Huel founder Julian Hearn and Spencer Matthews. During the discussion, Spencer Matthews referred to an endurance athlete who, he said, ate “Huel and only Huel” and subsequently won a 260km race through the Amazon rainforest. Julian Hearn explained his own practice of consuming Huel for breakfast and lunch during the working week before having a traditional meal in the evening, and on hearing the anecdote Julian Hearn’s immediate response was to advocate for nutritionally complete whole food as the ideal, with Huel filling a gap where that was not practicable.

The ASA received complaints from consumers, who believed the ad implied that Huel products could be a complete replacement for all conventional food and that as such the ads were irresponsible. There were also complaints that the ads contained unauthorised general health claims.

Huel argued that the purpose of the content was not to encourage consumers to replace conventional food entirely with its products. Indeed, it said it was intended to correct that misconception and position Huel as part of a balanced diet.

The ASA, however, upheld the complaints. It concluded that the advertising implied that Huel products could be used as a complete replacement for conventional food, and that the ads were therefore irresponsible. It also upheld the complaints that the advertising contained health claims which did not comply with the advertising rules.

Look at overall impression rather than intention

The decision is an important reminder that advertisers need to look beyond the claims they expressly make and consider the overall impression that consumers are likely to take away from an ad.

A brand may not intend to make a particular claim. It may even include statements which it believes qualify or contradict that claim. But that does not necessarily prevent the overall presentation from conveying a different message.

That is particularly important when dealing with health and nutrition. Health claims do not need to appear as carefully drafted statements of fact. They can be conveyed or inferred from the overall context of an advertisement.

The question for brands is not whether every sentence is technically compliant, but what is a consumer likely to understand this content to be telling them?

Influencer content is still brand advertising

The ruling is also a reminder of the risks associated with using influencers, ambassadors and other personalities to create more informal, conversational advertising.

Podcast-style interviews and social media content can deliberately feel spontaneous and authentic. It also leaves more space for conversation and for a broader message to be conveyed. Conversely there is also room for subjective interpretation, making it harder for a brand to retain control of overall messaging.

Big brands work with thousands of influencers and content creators. Reviewing all content is not realistic however brands should prioritise robust briefing, and should consider approval processes and legal review for longer form content, or content relating to more regulated areas such as food, health, financial services and environmental claims. A seemingly innocuous anecdote or off-the-cuff comment can significantly change the overall message conveyed by an ad.

An issue for investors and acquirers too

There is a wider transactional lesson here. Huel is in the process of being acquired by Danone for approximately £864m. Danone are unlikely to be hugely appreciative of the press coverage that this ASA decision has generated.

When investing in or acquiring a fast-growing consumer brand, due diligence traditionally focuses on IP ownership, commercial contracts, employment, data protection and litigation.

Advertising and marketing compliance should be on that list.

A brand's value is closely connected to its reputation, and an adverse regulatory ruling can rapidly become a reputational issue, particularly where the ruling attracts significant press and social media attention.

For investors and acquirers, advertising due diligence can help identify whether a target has appropriate sign-off processes, how it manages influencers and ambassadors, whether past campaigns present regulatory risks and whether potentially problematic advertising practices are embedded in the business.

For brands themselves, the message is equally straightforward, legal checks before content goes live are not simply about avoiding a technical breach. They are an important part of effective brand and reputation management.

Freeths' Advertising & Marketing team advises brands, agencies, investors and businesses on advertising compliance, influencer marketing, health claims, advertising less healthy foods, environmental claims and advertising-related due diligence.