The new CAP and BCAP Code restrictions on advertising "less healthy" food and drink products came into force on 5 January 2026, and the ASA has now served up its first batch of rulings under the new regime. The results? A mixed platter: four brands walked away unscathed, while two found themselves in hot oil. Here's what's on the menu.
The ones that passed the taste test
Kentucky Fried Chicken (Great Britain) Ltd - NOT UPHELD
KFC faced 28 complaints across five ads on TV, video on demand and paid-for placements on Reddit, YouTube and TikTok. The ads featured its Fillet Burger, Pepsi Max and Mini Fillets, plus footage of breaded chicken frying in oil.
KFC's defence was well-seasoned: it confirmed every product shown was non-HFSS. The Mini Fillets weren't visually indistinguishable from any specific less healthy product, and the breaded chicken frying in oil was mid-preparation food rather than a purchasable product. All five ads were classified as brand advertisements and cleared without a breach.
Domino's Pizza UK & Ireland Ltd - NOT UPHELD
Two paid-for social media ads showed pizzas alongside promotional text. Domino's confirmed both depicted the Vegi Supreme with a classic crust, which is non-HFSS in all sizes. Certain other crust variants (stuffed crust, thin and crispy) were less healthy, but the classic crust shown in the ads wasn't visually indistinguishable from those variants. Brand advertising exemption applied; no breach.
Papa John's (GB) Ltd - NOT UPHELD
A paid-for Facebook ad promoted pizza "from only £10". Papa John's confirmed the pizza depicted was a large original crust Garden Party, which is non-HFSS. The only HFSS variant (a wheat-free crust Vegan Garden Party) came in a different size with a different number of slices, making it visually distinguishable. No breach.
Uber Eats UK Ltd - NOT UPHELD
A video-on-demand ad showed a Burger King Whopper with the text "When you've adult'd enough" and the Uber Eats and Burger King logos. The ad was created and paid for by Uber Eats. The Whopper was non-HFSS, and while it was visually indistinguishable from the plant-based Whopper, that burger was also non-HFSS. No visually indistinguishable less healthy product existed, so the brand advertising exemption applied. Notably, this confirms that delivery platforms paying for ads are caught by the rules - even though they don't make or sell the food.
The ones that got roasted
Mars Wrigley Confectionery UK Ltd - UPHELD
This is the one that should give brand teams pause. A paid-for Instagram ad for M&M's featured the iconic cartoon-style M&M's characters (one round and green, the other oval and yellow) with the text "For a truly unique event". No product packaging, no images of confectionery, no references to flavour or ingredients.
Mars argued this was pure brand advertising. The ASA disagreed. The CAP Guidance is clear: brand characters that are personifications of a specific less healthy product don't qualify for the brand advertising exemption. The combination of the oval yellow character (matching the shape of a Peanut M&M's sweet) and other branding elements meant the ad effectively depicted a specific less healthy food product: Peanut M&M's.
The ASA told Mars to ensure its paid-for internet ads were not for identifiable less healthy foods, including through characters that depict a specific less healthy product. Sweet trouble.
S&E1 Ltd t/a Morley's Woking - UPHELD
A paid-for Instagram ad listed meal deals including steak burgers, cheeseburgers, wings, nuggets and large fries. The franchisee said it wasn't aware of the restrictions and removed the ad when told about the complaint.
The ASA confirmed that Morley's was not an SME (the overall franchise network employing 250 or more people), so the SME exemption didn't apply. The burgers, chicken nuggets and wings were less healthy foods, and neither the franchisee nor the franchisor provided formal nutrient profile calculations. The ad was a paid-for ad for identifiable less healthy foods and breached the CAP Code.
Key takeaways: five things to chew on
- Get your nutrient profiling in order. Every advertiser that escaped a breach could demonstrate, with supporting data, that the specific product depicted was non-HFSS. Advertisers should hold up-to-date and accurate nutrient profile calculations for every product that may appear in advertising, including visually similar variants.
- Watch for look-alikes. Where an advertiser depicts a non-HFSS product but the image is visually indistinguishable from an HFSS variant, the brand advertising exemption won't apply.
- Brand characters are not a free pass. Even without product packaging or images of actual food, a brand character that personifies a specific HFSS product may lead the ASA to treat the ad as being for that identifiable less healthy product. Advertisers deploying brand mascots should carefully assess whether those characters could be said to depict specific products rather than the brand as a whole.
- Delivery platforms beware. Any entity paying for an advertisement to be placed online must ensure compliance, even if it doesn't manufacture or sell food itself.
- Franchisors: train your network. The SME exemption won't apply if the overall franchise network employs 250 or more people. Franchisors should implement clear advertising approval processes and training programmes to prevent franchisee-level breaches.
