Who: The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA)
Where: United Kingdom
When: 15 April 2026
Law stated as at: 17 April 2026
What happened
A series of ASA rulings has shed some light on how the ASA interprets the “less healthy” food and drink (LHFD) advertising restrictions and the Committee of Advertising Practice’s implementation guidance, which both officially came into effect on 5 January this year.
The rules prohibit:
- Advertising and sponsorship for “identifiable” LHFD products on Ofcom-licensed TV services and Ofcom-regulated on-demand programme services between 05:30 and 21:00; and
- Paid-for ads for “identifiable” LHFD products intended to be accessed principally by persons in the UK at any time.
Online ads: product-by-product test in action
One of the rulings concerned a pair of banner and display ads on a news website for a food retailer. The retailer paid an ad network to serve the ads on its behalf to consumers who had previously visited the retailer’s website without completing a purchase. Each ad featured multiple food products alongside prices. Another ruling involved a paid social media post promoting the opening of a new restaurant, German Doner Kebab. An influencer attended the restaurant, ordered and tasted three menu items and highlighted a promotional giveaway of another item.
The ads were challenged on the basis that they were paid ads for an identifiable LHFD product placed on the internet.
Is the product identifiable?
The ASA considered that consumers who saw the ads for the food retailer could reasonably be expected to identify that the ads were for each of the products shown in the images. The ads for the restaurant promoted four identifiable items mentioned by the influencer – chicken kebab, rice bowl with chicken, chicken doner burrito and a kebab.
The ASA also considered whether a can of diet cola visible at the edge of the frame while the influencer tasted the food was identifiable as a product being advertised. It concluded that it was not, as the can appeared incidentally, was not referenced by the influencer and was evident only when the viewer’s attention was directed to the food and commentary. It also noted that the product in question was not an LHFD product in any event.
The question was therefore whether any of the identifiable products in the ads were LHFD.
Is the product less healthy?
A food or drink is “less healthy” if it satisfies two tests:
- it is classified as an HFSS product according to the Department of Health and Social Care’s Nutrient Profiling Technical Guidance; and
- it falls within a food or drink category set out in law.
In relation to the retailer’s ads, several products met one test but not both. A beef roasting joint, vegetable spring rolls, sticky chicken skewers and a spreadable butter product did not fall within a food or drink category set out in law and so were not restricted by the LHFD rule. A branded crisp product was also not an HFSS product and was similarly unrestricted. However, four confectionery products across the ads – a tub of sweets and three varieties of sweet snacks – were both HFSS and fell within the LHFD category 4 described in law as “Confectionery including chocolates and sweets”. These were therefore restricted under the LHFD rule and the ruling was upheld.
In relation to the ad for a restaurant, the restaurant operator provided nutrient profile calculations for the four items chosen by the influencer in the ad, which confirmed that they were not HFSS foods, and therefore not restricted by the LHFD rule.
The key distinction from the upheld ruling is that, where an advertiser can demonstrate that all identifiable products in an ad are not HFSS, the rule is not engaged.
TV ad: the incidental appearance exception in practice
Another ruling concerned a TV ad, seen before the 21:00 watershed, for an online travel agent promoting free airport lounge access for customers booking five-star holiday packages. The airport lounges included benefits, such as complimentary food and drink, Wi-Fi, comfortable seating and a less busy environment. The ad showed a child briefly picking up a chocolate ring doughnut from a lounge buffet, alongside grapes.
The ASA said that the legislation contains no limitation on applying the rules to a business outside the food and drink sector. The ASA therefore assessed whether consumers who viewed the ad could reasonably be expected to identify that the ad was for an LHFD product, finding that they could not.
In the ASA’s view, consumers would likely understand the ad as promoting the perk of complimentary lounge access as part of a holiday package. The food shown, including the doughnut, was a generic representation of the benefits that may be available in lounges included in the offer, rather than advertising of the food and drink products shown.
The ruling confirms that where an LHFD product appears purely incidentally and no reasonable consumer would understand the ad to be for that product, the restriction is unlikely to be triggered.
Why this matters
These rulings confirm that the LHFD advertising restrictions require a rigorous, product-level assessment at the planning stage. Advertisers must verify the nutritional status and category of every identifiable product featured in an online ad. Equally, where a LHFD product appears only incidentally and consumers would not reasonably identify the ad as being for that product, the rules are not engaged, whether in online or broadcast media.
The ASA’s chief executive, Guy Parker, has commented that in assessing whether the LHFD advertising restrictions have been breached, “the devil is in the detail of the law” and that the content and context of ads matter. Mr Parker notes that further decisions can be expected from the ASA “in the months ahead” as it aims to establish clear precedents. The government’s consultation on applying its newly updated Nutrient Profiling Model to LHFD advertising, which closes on 17 June, may further shape how the ASA applies the rules.
In the ASA and CAP’s 2025 annual report, the ASA noted that following its review of the alcohol advertising sector using its AI-based Active Ad Monitoring system, it plans to conduct similar studies in other areas, including LHFD advertising.
