The ASA takes its first bite out of “less healthy” food and drink advertising

What’s on the ASA’s plate?

New statutory restrictions regulating the advertising of “less healthy” food and drink came into force on 5 January 2026, introducing a UK-wide ban on identifiable “less healthy” food and drink products appearing: (i) between 5:30am and 9pm on TV and Ofcom-regulated on-demand and internet protocol television programme services; and (ii) in paid-for online advertising at any time. The restrictions have been incorporated into the CAP and BCAP Codes, which are enforced by the ASA.

Products considered “less healthy” and therefore in scope of the regulations are those which: (i) are assessed as high in fat, salt or sugar (“HFSS”) under the UK's Nutrient Profiling Model; and (ii) fall within 13 specified food and drink categories, including, for example, soft drinks, chocolates, sweets, pizzas and ice creams, as well as less obvious unhealthy foods, such as some breakfast cereals, porridges, sweetened bread products and sandwiches.

The ASA guidance indicates that a “less healthy” food and drink product is “identifiable” if a consumer could reasonably be expected to identify an advert as being for that product.

Themes from ads that left a bad taste

• The whole ad is on the menu: A paid for Instagram post by an influencer for Lidl featured a panning shot across trays of cheese pretzels, pain suisses and almond croissants. Although Lidl argued that the content was intended to be brand led rather than promote specific products, the ASA disagreed, finding that the ad’s focus on the pain suisses and cheese pretzels meant that consumers could reasonably be expected to identify the ad as promoting those products. The almond croissants, however, were assessed as incidental background imagery, having appeared only briefly on screen and without any verbal reference. While the cheese pretzels were not classified as “less healthy”, the pain suisses were, and the ASA therefore concluded that Lidl breached the CAP Code.

The ASA reached a more palatable conclusion in relation to a paid for Instagram post by an influencer for GDK International Ltd (German Doner Kebab), which featured various food items as well as a Diet Coke. In this case, GDK was able to demonstrate that none of the food items were “less healthy”, which meant that that the advertising ban did not apply to those products. Separately, the brief appearance of a Diet Coke – which appeared only at the edge of the frame, was in and out of shot and was never referenced by the influencer – was deemed incidental and, in any event, it was not a “less healthy” product. As a result, the complaint was not upheld.

The key takeaway? Thoughtful planning and precision matter. Understanding which products are caught by the restrictions and ensuring that any appearance of such products is genuinely incidental can be decisive in avoiding an adverse ruling.

• The buck stops with the brand: A ruling against Iceland made clear that brands will be held accountable, even if it's the actions of their agency or third-party partner that place them in hot water. In this case, an ad network operating on Iceland's behalf placed a number of ads featuring “less healthy” products online, including a tub of Swizzels Sweet Treats. The ads targeted consumers who had previously visited Iceland’s website but not completed a purchase.

The ASA concluded that the ads featuring “less healthy” products breached the rules, and that the CAP Code requires that persons, i.e. Iceland, must not pay for ads for an identifiable “less healthy” food or drink product to be placed on the internet, regardless of whether such ads are placed directly or via an intermediary. Iceland was therefore found to be in breach of the Code.

This ruling serves as a reminder that it’s the brand which is ultimately on the chopping block, and that robust oversight is essential to mitigate regulatory risk.

• Not just food brands: In a TV ad for On the Beach, promoting airport lounge access as part of its holiday offering, a close up shot showed a child placing a chocolate ring doughnut onto his plate, accompanied by the voice over: “Fill your boots, son. Slap on your best smug face”. Despite the close-up of the doughnut, the ASA concluded that the ad did not promote an identifiable “less healthy” food product. Two factors were key. First, the primary promotional message related to On the Beach’s overall holiday experience. Second, the doughnut’s appearance was treated as incidental and likely to be understood as a perk of lounge access rather than an encouragement to consume that specific product.

Whilst the ASA did not uphold the complaint against On the Beach, this decision should not be read as a free pass for non-food brands: the ASA’s ruling indicates that it will scrutinise how food and drink products are framed, irrespective of who features them.

The ASA has a taste for compliance

The tightening legal and policy regime around “less healthy” food and drink advertising, coupled with the ASA’s explicit focus on this area (as detailed in its 2025 Annual Report), signals that “less healthy” product advertising will remain a priority enforcement area. Advertisers should therefore expect the ASA to continue taking both proactive and reactive action in relation to “less healthy” food and drink advertising.

If you would like advice on navigating the “less healthy” food and drink advertising restrictions, please contact us.

Authored by Jennifer Crust, Micaela Bostrom, and Jessica Kelly.