Who: Advertising Standards Authority (ASA); Tonic Nutrition Ltd t/a Tonic Health (Tonic Health)
Where: United Kingdom
When: 16 July 2025
Law stated as at: 15 August 2025
What happened:
The ASA has issued a ruling against Tonic Health in relation to: 1) the use of misleading customer testimonials on the product review page of its website; and 2) the use of unsubstantiated health claims in a social media post.
Misleading customer testimonials
The product review page on the Tonic Health website included customer testimonials, consisting of a star rating, the customer’s name, title and a brief review. The complainant (a registered associate nutritionist) challenged whether these testimonials were genuine, having seen identical wording for a product review appear twice on the same page, attributed to two different customer names.
Tonic Health acknowledged that the duplicate testimonials had appeared under different customer names and claimed that this was due to a technical error. The company stated that it had removed both testimonials and was looking to implement stricter internal processes to check reviews and ensure there were no future errors.
The ASA considered that the two reviews with identical wording created the misleading impression that individual users had submitted the same positive feedback, which was not the case. This breached the UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising and Direct and Promotional Marketing (CAP Code), specifically the rules on misleading advertising (rule 3.1) and endorsements and testimonials (rule 3.45). Further, the duplicate reviews continued to appear on the product page for a few months, despite Tonic Health saying that it had removed them.
Unsubstantiated health claims
Tonic Health had also made several general and specific health claims in a social media ad for its “Rest & Recover Effervescent tablet”. The ASA challenged whether the general and specific health claims complied with the CAP Code.
The CAP Code provides that, for foods or ingredients, specific health claims in ads must be authorised as such on the Great Britain nutrition and health claims (NHC) register. General health claims, which refer to the general benefits of a nutrient or food for overall good health or well-being, must be accompanied by a specific health claim authorised on the GB NHC register.
Tonic Health’s ad stated that its product was “THE BEST SLEEP SUPPLEMENT ON THE MARET” and that it helped “ease stress, improve sleep and support muscle recovery.” It also stated: “Are you struggling with sleep? Well, I’ve got just the thing for you []…]”. The ASA considered that these were specific health claims, but there was no evidence that those claims were authorised on the GB NHC Register. Further, the ASA considered that “THE BEST SLEEP SUPPLEMENT ON THE MARKET” was a comparative specific health claim because it implied that the product was the most beneficial product on the market to improve sleep quality. Tonic Health recognised that phrases such as “THE BEST SLEEP SUPPLEMENT ON THE MARKET” required substantiation so removed this from its advertising.
The ASA also considered that the claim “Rest & Recover”, in the context of an ad for a supplement, would be understood as a reference to the general benefit of the supplement for overall good health and wellbeing, and was therefore a general health claim that had to be accompanied by an authorised specific health claim. Again, there was no authorised health claim on the GB NHC register. Tonic Health unsuccessfully argued that the term “Rest & Recover” was a widely recognised phrase and did not indicate any physiological change of health benefits. The ASA also rejected the argument that the rules did not apply to claims appearing in product names – they apply in the same way as to claims appearing elsewhere in ads.
Because the claims consisted of specific health claims, of which there was no evidence on the GB NHC Register, and a general health claim not accompanied by a specific authorised health claim, the ASA ruled that the ad breached the CAP Code rules on food, food supplements and associated health or nutrition claims, and food supplements and other vitamins and minerals.
Why this matters:
This ruling is a reminder of the importance of not only ensuring that food-related health claims are authorised under the GB NHC register, but also that customer reviews are not misleading and comply with the rules as well. This latter point is particularly important now that the prohibited commercial practice of publishing and commissioning fake and misleading reviews under the unfair commercial practices (UCPs) provisions of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA) is in effect. The UCPs came into effect on 6 April 2025 and the rules on endorsements and testimonials under the CAP Code were subsequently updated to reflect the new rules. In a nutshell, the previous CAP Code rules provided that endorsements and testimonials in marketing materials had to be genuine and not misleading, and now, the rules provide that marketing materials must not contain fake reviews and must make clear where a review has been incentivised.
The upshot of the changes is that businesses could potentially now face enforcement action not only from the ASA, if the fake review is contained within marketing materials and breaches the rules in the CAP Code, but also from the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), who can now enforce directly, without going through the courts, and has the power to impose significant fines.
This ASA ruling was based on the CAP Code as it stood before the UCPs provisions came into effect and it was updated, so it was not affected by the new rules. The CMA also allowed a three-month grace period when the new UCPs came into effect to give businesses time to comply. However, that has now ended. Both the ASA and the CMA can now, therefore, enforce the new provisions.
In fact, the CMA has already conducted a review of the websites of more than 100 businesses to assess their compliance with the new provisions and with its guidance on fake and misleading reviews. The sweep focused on whether these businesses have a specific policy in place prohibiting fake and misleading reviews, and whether they explain their approach to incentivised reviews (that is whether they ban them or make it clear that they must be labelled and genuine). The CMA found that over half of the businesses reviewed (54) could be failing to comply with the guidance. Some companies appeared to have no policies in place at all, while others had policies, but they were unclear, incomplete or inaccessible. The CMA is writing to those 54 businesses, advising them that they must review the guidance and put the necessary measures in place to comply with the new rules. Given that businesses could potentially face enforcement action from two directions, the need to comply with the new rules is of paramount importance.
