Yesterday, I once again had the pleasure of welcoming Guy Parker, CEO of the Advertising Standards Authority, for our annual "fireside chat" webinar. As usual, we discussed various hot topics in the Adlaw world, as well as the ASA's key priorities.

ASA's research on perceptions of advertising

Guy and I kicked off by discussing the ASA's research about public concerns regarding advertising. The ASA published three reports after surveying about 7,000 people in relation to their general concerns in life and on their attitudes to advertising.  The first report was quite broad, but a key concern for people when asked about the media landscape was disinformation. When it came to advertising, scam ads were top of people's list of concerns. The second report looked at portrayal and imagery. Nearly half of respondents were concerned about the depiction of women and girls in ads – this involved both sexualisation and objectification as well as gender stereotyping.  In the last year, the ASA has issued a series of rulings about models who look unhealthily thin, which is an issue that appeared to have receded since being a common problem about 10 years ago. The third report was about misleadingness. Over half the respondents  were concerned about misleading customer reviews and other people were concerned about misleading imagery and misleading omissions of key information.

Reviewing ASA decisions: from Independent Review to Judicial Review

I picked up on this last point. The ASA is currently waiting for the outcome of a judicial review which involved this issue and that has been the catalyst for internal thinking on what information needs to be provided in ads. Guy pointed out that the ASA usually, but not always, wins judicial review cases. I pointed out that the Independent Reviewer helps to protect the ASA from judicial reviews. We also paid tribute to the recently retired Independent Reviewer, Sir Hayden Phillips, noting the role that he played in ending the Iranian embassy siege back in 1980. This is described in Ben Macintyre's excellent book, The Siege, an excellent present for advertising law nerds this Christmas.

Progress with Greenwashing

This year there have been two standout greenwashing decisions – about Barclays and Shell, where the ASA didn't uphold the complaints.  A third decision about TotalEnergies was upheld. The rulings show businesses with high carbon footprints where to draw the line in a sustainability ad and what information to provide to support sustainability claims.  It is important not to mislead by omission. Guy pointed businesses towards the rulings and the associated guidance, not least to avoid greenhushing.  He also said that there's a debate going on about why there are fewer green claims. Is it because businesses fear the ASA or the CMA clamping down on them? Or because of the Trump effect? However, there are still plenty of green claims – and many are compliant. For example, airlines have improved their compliance.

A question was raised by a member of the audience about the ASA's recent Red Tractor ruling. This concerned a TV ad seen on 1^st May 2023 and the adjudication was published on 15^th October 2025, so a very long-running investigation. The single complaint came from a campaign group, River Action. There weren't any specific green claims in the ad, but the ASA thought they were implied. Guy highlighted that if a brand is making a green claim, it needs to make sure that it doesn't imply more than it can substantiate.  And remember that the ASA will consider what people read into a claim, not what was intended by it.

"Weaponised" complaints: are they legitimate?

As a segue from the River Action complaint, I raised the issue of a competitor (or campaign group) raising complaints even though Clearcast has approved the ad and no consumers have complained, but the ASA has upheld the ruling. Guy pointed out that a lot of people in the ASA will see a draft ruling before it goes to the Council, so it isn't just one person's view.  And they often disagree with the complaints, which are then not investigated, but the public don't necessarily see those. And if it's not a priority area for the ASA, they may not take it forward anyway. Last year the ASA received 35,000 complaints and published around 300 rulings, so there's a lot of triaging.

Guy said that if a campaign group makes a complaint but is not transparent about their lack of neutrality, the ASA will make it clear in the ruling provided they know about it. The lesson is to ensure that advertisers brief the ASA about the complainant when submitting their response to an investigation.

Implementing the new rules for advertising Less Healthy Food 

The new regulation of less healthy food and drink has taken up much of the ASA's time this year.  The uncertainty over brand advertising made food and drink businesses unhappy, as well as the media. The government was clear that there should be a broad brand exemption (as was the previous government) but it hadn't been drafted correctly in the law.  The ASA couldn't implement it via guidance as it could have been subject to a judicial review and might have even been liable for damages. Therefore, it needed the government to clarify the law. 

Now that has been done, the ASA will publish the third and final version of the guidance within the next few weeks, subject to Ofcom and the Secretary of State for Health signing off on it. Guy said that businesses can plan based on the draft guidance in the meantime. He emphasised that if an ad starts now and appears after 5 January, the ASA will regulate it. In addition, he said that any regulatory action is more likely to cover online advertising, as TV advertising goes through Clearcast first. Guy also pointed out that there have been a lot of reformulated products, which was the point of the legislation in the first place. There are ads that present as LHF products, but they don't score highly enough on the nutrient profile, so they are acceptable.  So, once the rules come in, if you think an ad is blatantly for a less healthy food product, it might not be.

The good news about alcohol advertising

Recently the ASA issued its Pulse report about alcohol. The ASA uses AI to find ads which inform its understanding of what's going on in the sector as well as ads which may breach the Code.  It will screen over 40 million ads this year! Meta and Google have given the ASA API access to their ad libraries. The review covered all the CAP Code rules, which was new – the reviews used to focus on one part of the Code. Guy thinks that the ASA will use it in areas such as gambling, vapes and less healthy foods as well.

The report found that compliance in the alcohol sector was fine, with about 96% indicative compliance. Guy emphasised that the AI decisions are confirmed by a human.  There are campaigners for stricter compliance/rules, but he said that the ASA feels that compliance is very good. And he said that even in cases of non-compliance, there can be technical issues such as not stating ABV rather than a serious breach of the CAP Code.

Tackling misleading and scam ads from overseas advertisers

I raised the issue of overseas ads being targeted at UK consumers and how the Intermediary and Platform Principles (IPP) project is dealing with this, e.g. if the products are counterfeit or the ads are scam ads. The government and various regulators are trying to figure out how to clamp down on scam ads. The ASA regulates reputable advertisers, rather than criminal gangs sending scam ads who have a lot of money to spend on evading disruption to their nefarious activities. However, the ASA does send out scam alerts when they are reported to it, for ads to be taken down – it is a process of Whack-A-Mole though. Ian Murray recently took over from Chris Bryant as relevant Minister, and he is very concerned about scams and fraudulent advertising. I also wondered if the new offence of failure to prevent fraud might affect how organisations tackle fraudulent advertising, including the platforms.

Looking forward

Finally, Guy talked about the ASA's priorities and projects for next year, which will include continuing the IPP project and moving from reactive to proactive regulation, although the reactive cases are important. There will be more collective ad regulation with partners such as platforms and other regulators, such as the weight loss injection project this year with the MHRA. The ASA will also be using more AI and data science to monitor areas and obtain better information about compliance.  Being able to add to the evidence base helps with discussions with the government and other bodies when they talk about more stringent ad regulation (for example, the Scottish government wanting to ban alcohol advertising). 

I'd like to express my thanks to Guy for giving up his time and generously sharing his insights for our fireside chat each year. I hope everyone enjoyed it and thank you to everyone who submitted a question in advance or during the event itself. If you were unable to join us for the live event, please let me know if you would like a link to a recording.