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.

No items found.

No items found.

No items found.
Date published
03 Jun 2026

Abstract overlapping curved shapes in varying shades of violet and purple on a solid violet background.

Legal insights & events

Keep up to date on the issues that matter.

Abstract yellow background with overlapping translucent olive green curved shapes.

Follow us

Find us on social media

No items found.
No items found.