
HFSS advertising enforcement: Practical takeaways from the ASA's recent rulings
The Advertising Standards Authority’s (ASA) recent rulings under the UK’s new restrictions on online advertising of ‘less healthy’ High Fat, Salt and Sugar (HFSS) food and drink provide valuable insight into how the regulator is interpreting and enforcing the regime in practice. Taken together, these decisions point to a clear and strict enforcement approach, with important implications for a wide range of businesses operating across the food and drink sector.
Since 5 January 2026, the Committees of Advertising Practice (CAP) Code has prohibited paid-for online advertising of identifiable ‘less healthy’ food and drink products. Whether a product falls within scope depends both on the product category and its classification under the UK Nutrient Profiling Model. In applying the rules, the ASA has focused on two core questions: whether the advertising is paid for, and whether it makes a restricted HFSS product identifiable to consumers.
The ASA’s early rulings suggest these questions will be assessed pragmatically, by reference to how the average consumer is likely to perceive the advertising as a whole, and by looking beyond labels applied by advertisers such as ‘brand-led’.
Key enforcement principles emerging from the rulings
1) Brand advertising arguments will be closely scrutinised
The ASA has shown a reluctance to accept ‘brand-led’ characterisations where individual food products are visually prominent or expressly referenced. Close-up imagery, product descriptions and enthusiastic commentary can all contribute to a finding that specific products are identifiable, even where the advertiser’s stated intention is to promote the brand more generally. This sits alongside CAP guidance that branding (including logos, marks, characters, colours or straplines) can itself have the effect of promoting a specific HFSS product where it is synonymous with that product or a mainly-HFSS range.
2) Influencer marketing is squarely in scope
A key feature of the first wave of rulings is that influencer-led content has been treated as paid-for online advertising where there is a demonstrable commercial arrangement. That means the same identifiability analysis applies to influencer ads: if an HFSS product is clearly shown, named or endorsed, calling the content ‘brand-led’ is unlikely to avoid a breach.
3) Identifiability is interpreted strictly
The concept of an ‘identifiable’ product is being applied rigorously. Advertising does not need to focus exclusively on a single product to breach the rules; it is sufficient for restricted products to be recognisable by consumers from the overall presentation (including imagery, naming, descriptions and contextual cues).
4) Mixed basket advertising presents particular risk
The presence of non-HFSS products will not mitigate the inclusion of HFSS products in paid-for online advertising. This has particular implications for banner advertising, retail media and programmatic formats, where multiple products are commonly displayed together alongside pricing and promotional messaging.
5) Nutrient profiling evidence can be outcome-determinative
Where advertisers contend that featured products are not restricted, the early rulings indicate that clear, product-level substantiation matters. Maintaining nutrient profiling calculations and related evidence, and planning campaigns around compliant options, can materially strengthen a defence where a complaint is made.
6) ‘Incidental’ appearances are a narrow and fact-specific exception
The ASA’s wider April rulings (including in the broadcast context) suggest that where food appears only incidentally and consumers would primarily identify the ad as being for something else, the restrictions may not bite. However, this is likely to be a narrow exception: prominence, emphasis and the overall take-out for the average consumer will be decisive.
7) Enforcement is expected to be proactive as well as reactive
Alongside these first decisions, the ASA has signalled that it will continue to roll out further rulings, supported by proactive monitoring. In practice, that increases the importance of getting compliance right at the point of creative development, not only when responding to complaints.
Who this applies to
It is worth being clear that the HFSS online advertising restrictions apply more broadly than many businesses may assume. Any entity involved in commissioning, producing or placing paid-for advertising that features identifiable HFSS products may be caught, including:
- Food and drink brands and manufacturers;
- Retailers – including those running paid-for product promotions on their own or third party websites;
- Intermediaries and agencies managing digital or retail media campaigns;
- Influencers and content creators who receive payment or other commercial consideration; and
- The brands or businesses that commission influencer activity, even where the influencer is the nominally identified advertiser.
What this means in practice
These early decisions confirm that the ASA intends to enforce the HFSS online advertising restrictions strictly, with a focus on how advertising is likely to be perceived in practice rather than on the labels applied to it. Compliance will depend on:
- careful pre-campaign planning and product screening against the UK Nutrient Profiling Model;
- robust documentary controls (including up-to-date nutrient profiling evidence);
- clear briefing of influencers, agencies and other intermediaries; and
- kerryclose scrutiny of creative execution, particularly in online display and influencer-led campaigns.
For more information on how we can help you navigate the HFSS regulations, ensure your adverts are compliant, and / or assist with responding to complaint investigations, please get in touch.
Authors: Lydia Aspinall and Kerry Gwyther
This publication is intended for general guidance and represents our understanding of the relevant law and practice as at June 2026. Specific advice should be sought for specific cases. For more information see our terms & conditions.
Get in touch
Get in touch
Insights & events

HFSS advertising enforcement: Practical takeaways from the ASA's recent rulings

CMA v Emma Sleep: let the reference pricing battles begin

CMA secures High Court Order against Emma Sleep over misleading sales promotions

Why work-related stress is a health and safety issue

Beyond the DMCC: Is the UK bracing for a consumer class action wave?

CMA issues first fine for breach of consumer law under the DMCC Act in drip pricing case

CMA focus on AI, collusion and competition law: What you need to know

Agentic AI: CMA publishes guidance on consumer law and DMCCA risks

Competition Appeal Tribunal issues further judgment on the application of the Commercial Market Operator principle

CMA steps up its crackdown on fake and misleading reviews

AI chatbots and competition law: A look into the Meta WhatsApp antitrust investigations

DMCC Act - The next chapter for CMA Consumer Law Enforcement

Significant changes to the UK Trade Remedies System: Amends to the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018

Cyber Security and Resilience Bill Explained | TLT

Navigating Green Claims: CMA Guidance for Supply Chain Actors

TLT continues expansion of future energy team with appointment of regulatory expert

TLT shortlisted for two awards at Manchester Legal Awards

TLT Grows National Regulatory Team | TLT
TLT Partner Appointed Chair of North West Fraud Forum | TLT

TLT Shortlisted for Firm of the Year at Scottish Legal Awards | TLT

TLT Wins Law Firm of the Year at Manchester Legal Awards | TLT

TLT Recognised for Two Awards at The Lawyer Awards 2022 | TLT

TLT Shortlisted for Two Manchester Legal Awards 2022 | TLT

TLT advises Partners Wealth Management on acquisition by 7IM

TLT wins expanded role on North West Legal Consortium panel

TLT Celebrates Another Win at Car Finance Awards | TLT







%20%C3%94%C3%87%C3%B4%20790px%20X%20451px%2072ppi5.jpg)



%20%C3%94%C3%87%C3%B4%20790px%20X%20451px%2072ppi.avif)
















