Who: The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) and the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice (BCAP)
Where: United Kingdom
When: 4 December 2025
Law stated as at: 13 January 2026
What happened:
On 5 January 2026, UK restrictions on TV advertising of “less healthy” food and drink (LHF) products and the total ban on paid-for advertising of these products online officially came into effect. On 4 December 2025, CAP published implementation guidance to assist advertisers in understanding how the ASA is likely to apply the rules, as well as the final version of the rules that integrate the restrictions set out in legislation into the UK advertising codes.
The rules prohibit:
- Advertising and sponsorship for “identifiable” LHF 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” LHF products intended to be accessed principally by persons in the UK at any time.
Advertisers will be responsible for compliance where they pay publishers, media owners or other intermediaries (for example, agencies) to place ads. For these purposes, “paying” includes monetary and non-monetary consideration. Accordingly, “gifting” LHF products to influencers is likely to fall within scope of the restrictions.
In its recent webinar, CAP suggested that an acceptable approach may be to engage an influencer to create content which only the brand posts on its own social channels (as advertiser owned socials are out of scope). This will limit the reach of the ad and would likely need to be handled with care (for example, avoiding tagging the influencer). In the same webinar, CAP also addressed content where influencers use non-LHF products in recipes where the end product is LHF. Providing a non‑LHF product to an influencer who then uses it to create an LHF recipe is unlikely to be an issue because the final LHF dish is not available for sale. Conversely, providing an LHF product that is then turned into a non‑LHF meal would likely still be caught, as the original LHF product is being promoted.
However, the ASA will consider the overall circumstances (for example, the existence of a contractual relationship).
Products and advertisers in scope
A product is classified as “less healthy” if it satisfies a two‑part test:
- It falls within one of the categories set out in the Schedule to the Advertising (Less Healthy Food Definitions and Exemptions) Regulations 2024 and is not exempt (broadly speaking, the categories cover soft drinks with added sugar, savoury snacks, breakfast cereals, confectionery, ice cream, cakes, biscuits, morning goods, desserts, sweetened yoghurt, pizza, potato products, complete meals, ready meals, battered or breaded products and sandwiches); and
- It is classified as a food or soft drink product that is high in fat, salt or sugar (HFSS), scoring 4 or more points for a food or 1 or more points for a drink, under the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) 2004-05 nutrient profile model, as detailed in the DHSC’s January 2011 Nutrient profiling technical guidance.
Ads placed solely by or on behalf of businesses that do not directly supply food or drink are highly unlikely to fall within scope, even if they include general references or generic images of food or drink (for example, a car advert that incidentally shows people consuming LHF products). However, a joint advert with a food or drink supplier may fall in scope as that supplier’s involvement may influence the content or how the average consumer understands what the ad is for under the identifiability test.
Ads that depict or refer to an LHF product available through a delivery service, aggregator or similar service risk falling within scope, subject to the other considerations set out in the guidance.
Identifiability test
The restrictions apply only to advertisements for “identifiable” LHF products. A product is “identifiable” if persons in the UK could reasonably be expected to identify the ad as being for that product.
The ASA will consider the ad from the perspective of a notional “average consumer”. It will focus on the ad’s content and how the message is likely to be received. This involves assessing whether a reasonably well-informed, reasonably observant and circumspect consumer in the UK could be expected to identify an ad as being for a LHF product. When judging prominence, the ASA will consider factors such as where product references appear (for example, foreground or background), how long they are shown, and what draws the viewer’s attention. For example, an image of an LHF product shown very briefly or appearing indistinctly in the background of an ad may not meet the identifiability test. The guidance emphasises the need for a case-by-case analysis.
Exemptions
Even where the identifiability test is likely to be met, the following exemptions may apply:
- Advertisements for out-of-scope products or in out-of-scope media (such as outdoor ads, radio). Online ads where no payment is involved are also exempt, for example ads on brands’ own socials, own sites and apps and organic content.
- Advertisements by small and medium-sized enterprises (being companies with fewer than 250 employees, including international and franchisee staff).
- Brand advertising.
Brand advertising exemption
A “brand advertisement” exemption, introduced by the Advertising (Less Healthy Food and Drink) (Brand Advertising Exemption) Regulations 2025, applies to adverts that promote a brand, including a brand of a range of products. This could include a simple logo brand awareness, generic imagery or non-LHF variant imagery. The exemption does not extend to an advertisement:
- the content of which depicts a specific LHF product. Advertisers should exercise caution, as certain approaches may result in an ad that has the effect of depicting a specific LHF product. For example, an ad that includes a piece of branding related only to a specific LHF product (such as a specific product’s logo) would not qualify for the brand advertising exemption. The guidance makes it clear that generic imagery is likely to fall within the brand exemption if it is sufficiently distinct from a specific LHF product. One example is to show ingredients being used in preparation. However, the guidance cautions against going too far – the imagery should remain generic and must not clearly depict an LHF product being prepared.
- that promotes a brand where the brand name is also the name of a specific LHF product. However, the exemption will still apply where the depiction is only by way of the name of the product being advertised, and the product’s full name is included in the name of a company etc established before 16 July 2025.
- the content of which includes a realistic image of a food or drink product where: (i) the realistic image shows the food or drink itself and not merely the product’s packaging; and (ii) the food or drink product is visually indistinguishable from a specific LHF product. This is particularly relevant to ads where marketers seek to use realistic imagery of specific LHF products as generic imagery, for example, in the background of a creative to provide context to the main message.
Interaction with existing HFSS rules
Restrictions on LHF advertising do not replace previous HFSS rules; they apply in addition and co-exist. Even where the LHF product rules do not apply, ads for HFSS products must still comply with the UK advertising codes’ rules on HFSS advertising, and an HFSS scheduling restriction could still apply.
Why this matters
The restrictions apply from 5 January 2026, although many in the industry had voluntarily agreed to comply with them from the original “in force” date of 1 October 2025 which was postponed due to government’s consideration of the “brand advertising” exemption. The ASA’s enforcement applies from 5 January, and we are yet to see how it will interpret some of the more nuanced concepts in the rules. The ASA has confirmed that it is now using its AI-powered Active Ad monitoring system in a “limited and proportionate” manner to find non-compliant ads so advertisers should carefully review the ASA and CAP’s guidance and should hold evidence when relying on any of the exemptions in case of investigations by the ASA. The burden of proof is on advertisers to demonstrate why their ad complies with the rules.
