Less healthy food advertising: what are we learning from the ASA rulings?

The ASA's growing body of rulings on the new less healthy food (LHF) advertising restrictions is beginning to answer some of the questions that brands, retailers and marketing teams have been grappling with since the rules came into force. But the decisions also show how fine the line between compliant brand advertising and prohibited product advertising can be.

Since 5 January 2026, paid-for online advertisements for identifiable less healthy food and drink products have been prohibited, with corresponding restrictions applying to television and regulated on-demand services before 9pm. The rules contain an important exemption for brand advertising, and much of the emerging case law concerns where that exemption ends.

The rulings now cover everything from pizza and fried chicken to chocolate eggs, M&M's characters, influencers and supermarket promotions. So, what are we learning?

When does a less healthy product become “identifiable”?

This remains the central issue. Sometimes the answer is straightforward. An Amazon Fresh Instagram ad included a pack shot of a Cadbury Creme Egg Easter egg. Because it was a specific HFSS confectionery product falling within a prescribed LHF category, the complaint was upheld.

But the decisions show that context and prominence matter.

An influencer promoting Lidl Northern Ireland Ltd's bakery focused on particular products through close-ups, tasting and commentary. The pain suisse was an identifiable LHF product, resulting in an upheld complaint. By contrast, almond croissants briefly visible in the background were incidental.

On The Beach Ltd's TV ad showed a child taking a chocolate doughnut from an airport lounge buffet. The ASA considered consumers would understand this simply as illustrating an airport-lounge benefit, rather than as advertising the doughnut.

The message is clear: the mere appearance of food does not necessarily make an ad an LHF advertisement.

You don't need to show the product

Perhaps more surprisingly, a product can be identifiable without a pack shot, or even an image of the food.

YO! Sushi UK Ltd advertised a collaboration using the words “Made with KITKAT® Cream Puff”. There was only one relevant cream-puff product and it was an LHF product. The words alone were sufficient to identify the product.

The Mars Wrigley Confectionery UK Ltd decision goes further. An M&M's advertisement featured the familiar green and yellow characters but no conventional product image. The ASA considered that the oval yellow character depicted Peanut M&M's through its combination of shape, colour and character. The brand advertising exemption therefore did not apply.

For businesses with strong brand identities, this matters. Copy, characters, colours, shapes and other distinctive brand assets may all need to form part of the clearance exercise.

Is generic food imagery safer?

In Ferrero UK Ltd's Thorntons advertisement, a generic unwrapped chocolate egg appeared alongside advertising for the brand's egg range. Although Thorntons' actual egg products were LHFs, the generic egg neither depicted nor was visually indistinguishable from a specific product. The brand advertising exemption applied.

However, rulings involving Papa John's, Popeyes, KFC and Uber Eats show how detailed this assessment can become. The ASA considered characteristics such as toppings, ingredients and physical appearance when determining whether apparently generic food imagery was visually indistinguishable from a particular LHF product.

It’s therefore not enough simply to know that the food photographed for a campaign is non-HFSS. Businesses also need to consider what consumers might reasonably identify it as.

Product selection and data matter

The decisions also demonstrate how product selection can support a compliant campaign. German Doner Kebab provided its agency with menu items an influencer could select based on their HFSS status. The featured products were supported by nutrient profile calculations demonstrating they were not HFSS, and the complaint was not upheld.

The underlying nutritional data must, however, be right. Domino's Pizza UK & Ireland Ltd had treated a Sausage and Bacon pizza as non-HFSS based on incorrect nutritional information. Once corrected, the product was HFSS and the ASA upheld the relevant complaints.

Nutrient profiling, product selection and creative execution need to work together, and the data needs to be right.

Don't overlook influencers and the wider digital journey

Influencer activity deserves particular attention. The rulings involving San Carlo, Lidl, German Doner Kebab and Morley's demonstrate how tasting, close-ups and commentary can determine whether individual products become identifiable.

Businesses should also consider the complete digital journey. In the Costcutter/Cadbury ruling, the paid Instagram ad benefited from the brand advertising exemption, but a linked webpage featuring pack shots of specific LHF products was separately found to breach the rules in the circumstances.

That means reviewing not only the hero creative, but also influencer content, paid social, targeting and associated paid landing-page activity.