ASA continues to apply 'less healthy' food and drink ad restrictions
The ASA issues further rulings under the “less healthy” food and drink advertising restrictions.
The ASA issues further rulings under the “less healthy” food and drink advertising restrictions.
Research commissioned by the ASA into consumer attitudes to the provision of material information in online ads finds that consumers generally accept material information being “one click away”, though they expect key details upfront in higher-risk contexts. The findings do not alter the ASA’s existing regulatory approach under the Advertising Codes.
The ASA’s report on environmental claims in UK online advertising finds that, while such claims are relatively rare, they frequently use high-risk absolute terms such as “eco-friendly” and “sustainable” that require significant substantiation under the CAP Code.
The ASA finds harmful gender stereotype in a DIY ad.
The ASA ruled that 111skin’s “Exosome Face Lift” product listing made efficacy claims that could not be substantiated and exaggerated the effects of the product, in breach of the CAP Code.
The UK has prohibited tobacco and vaping advertising under the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026, while the European Commission consults on modernising its own tobacco advertising and product rules.
ASA rules that a dance app using a money back model cannot be descried as “free”.
The Court of Appeal holds that the test for consent under the UK GDPR and PECR is objective.
The ASA ruled that a Gecko Play ad comparing gambling to eating pistachios trivialised gambling and encouraged socially irresponsible behaviour, in breach of the CAP Code.
The ASA upheld complaints against Untamed Cat Food’s ad, ruling that claims about competitor meat content in cat food and cats’ nutritional needs were misleading and insufficiently substantiated.
The ASA upheld a complaint against Charmfay Shop’s online ad for a hooded jumper, finding that the claims and imagery had not been substantiated and were misleading.
The ASA upheld complaints against WiggyDog’s ad for a robot-dog toy, finding that claims and imagery exaggerated the product’s realism and functionality.