On 5 January 2026, new rules in the CAP and BCAP Codes on the advertising of "less healthy" food and drink products came into force. Foods and drinks are assessed using the UK government's Nutrient Profiling Model (NPM). Products scoring above certain thresholds, and within particular categories of product, are classified as less healthy. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has now published its first four rulings under the new rules, and these provide some very helpful indicators about how the ASA is going to interpret and apply the new rules.

German Doner Kebab

The first ruling was about a paid Instagram post by influencer (Big) John Fisher promoting the opening of a German Doner Kebab (GDK) restaurant in Romford and featuring several menu items, including an Inferno OG chicken, a rice bowl with chicken, a chicken doner burrito and a junior OG kebab. The issue was whether the ad breached the new rules. GDK confirmed that the post was a paid ad and said it had carefully limited the featured items to those that were not less healthy, providing nutrient profiling calculations to support this. The ASA accepted this evidence, found that none of the foods shown were classed as less healthy under the rules, and concluded that the ad did not breach the CAP Code. It also decided that the appearance of a Diet Coke was incidental and consumers could not reasonably be expected to identify that the ad was for Diet Coke. Therefore, it did not uphold the complaint. You can watch the ad here, and as you will see, Big John is a fine example of someone following a healthy lifestyle.

On the Beach

The ASA also rejected a complaint about a television advert for On The Beach that aired before 9pm and briefly showed a child taking a chocolate doughnut from an airport lounge buffet. The complaint challenged whether the ad was for an identifiable "less healthy" food product and therefore breached the new restrictions. The ASA agreed with On The Beach (and Clearcast) that the ad's primary focus was on promoting its holiday packages and the added benefit of free airport lounge access, rather than on any specific food item. It also noted that the doughnut appeared only momentarily, formed part of a wider buffet setting and was not given any narrative or visual emphasis. As a result, the ASA concluded that the inclusion of the doughnut was incidental and that the ad was not for an identifiable less healthy product, meaning it did not breach the Code.  However, the ASA noted that the fact that the advertiser was a travel company rather than a food company, didn't mean that the ad was out of scope. 

Funnily enough, I remember seeing this ad, which you can watch here, and thinking that it normalized childhood obesity. The little boy is seriously overweight and should not be 'filling his boots' with a massive chocolate donut. Even if the ad does not breach the very technical new rules about advertising for less healthy foods, how well does it sit with the Code rule about social responsibility? Are we allowed to say that overweight children should not be encouraged to eat large chocolate donuts, whether identifiable or not? Or is that fat-shaming? And what is the point of the new rules if this is still allowed?

The other two advertisers fared less well, with both complaints resulting in an upheld ruling.

Iceland

The ASA upheld complaints about a paid banner ad and a display ad for Iceland Foods, which featured a range of branded food products with prices. Iceland said it had systems in place to identify less healthy products but some of the information had been inaccurate. 
 
 
Iceland accepted that some items featured (including Swizzles Sweet Treats tub, Chupa Chups Laces, Chooee Disco Stix and Haribo Elf Surprises) were less healthy.  The ASA found that the ads clearly featured identifiable less healthy products in a paid online context. As a result, both ads were found to breach the Code, and the ASA upheld the complaints.

Lidl

In the final ruling, the ASA upheld a complaint about a paid Instagram post by influencer Emma Kearney promoting Lidl's bakery "special guest" products, which featured close‑up footage and enthusiastic descriptions of specific bakery items, including a Pain Suisse and a Cheese Pretzel. 
You can watch the video here. Make of it what you will.
 
Although Lidl said the ad was intended to be brand‑led, the ASA found that the focus on individual products meant the ad was for identifiable food items rather than the bakery generally. Lidl accepted that the Pain Suisse was classed as a "less healthy" product, and the ASA concluded that the prominent presentation of this item breached the CAP Code prohibition on paid online advertising for identifiable less healthy foods. The fact that one featured product (the Cheese Pretzel) was not less healthy did not alter the overall assessment.  It also considered that the reference to almond croissants was incidental, but it also didn't change the overall assessment. 

What does this mean for clients?

These rulings show how strictly the ASA intends to police the new restrictions on advertising less healthy food and drink products. They show that advertisers will not be penalised simply for working with influencers or promoting food online, provided they can demonstrate that featured products fall outside the scope of less healthy foods, or aren't identifable. However, where ads clearly highlight identifiable less healthy foods, whether through prominent imagery, pricing, or enthusiastic product‑led messaging, the ASA is prepared to intervene, even where advertisers argue that campaigns were intended to be brand‑led or supported by compliance systems. The rulings are also interesting because they resulted from "old-fashioned" complaints to the ASA, rather than the ASA's proactive Ai monitoring. We can probably expect more rulings on this topic once the ASA gets into its stride with AI monitoring in this sector.
 
If you have been affected by any of the issues raised in these adjudications, it's worth reading them through in full, as there are nuances that we can't digest in this small serving, but there are important lessons to be learned.
 
* Disclaimer: We live in very dark times.  Any little ray of humour to lighten the day is therefore to be welcomed. The ASA did not literally endorse doner kebabs as a health food, and the picture is of a kebab made of an indeterminate meat product, but probably not chicken. 

Loading component...

Authors