ASA ruling on advertising restrictions for less healthy foods

Following its rulings in April 2026 and earlier this month, the Advertising Standards Authority (“ASA”) continues to clarify its rules on advertising “less healthy” food and drink products (“LHF”) with a new round of rulings.

This time, the ASA further clarifies the SME exemption and provides additional guidance on identifiability and the brand exemption. As with the previous round of rulings, some well-known brands have found themselves under the ASA's scrutiny.

What are the key takeaways

• Exercise caution with nutrient profiling data: the brand exemption will not cover cases where an identifiable LHF product is featured, even as part of a wider range advertisement. Domino's intended to advertise its "Cheeky Little Pizza" range, but the ASA found that the inclusion of the specific Sausage and Bacon pizza meant the ads depicted a particular LHF product and therefore fell outside the exemption. This mistake stemmed from an error in the nutrient profiling data supplied by a third-party provider when preparing the ads. While this evidently caused Domino’s to fall foul of the LHF restrictions, it is a cautionary tale for marketing departments to review and consider nutrient profiling data, even where this is outsourced. In other contexts, such issues may sometimes have been resolved informally, but the ASA’s response illustrates that it is less inclined to offer informal resolutions in this area, especially where high-profile brands are involved.
• A range of meal options may prevent products being identifiable: the McDonald's ruling provides perhaps the most significant guidance of the three decisions on how the ASA will assess product identification. In particular, reference to a "McNuggets medium meal", which also consisted of side, drink and dip options (some of which were LHF products), was permitted on the basis that Chicken McNuggets were not an LHF product, and that was the only specific product within that meal that was depicted in the ad. The other elements of the meal were not considered as having been depicted because consumers could choose from a broad range of options and none of the choices were specifically referenced. The decision also confirms that an advertisement for a food delivery service can benefit from the brand advertising exemption. However, in this case, because specific menu items were depicted, an assessment was necessary as to whether these were LHF products. As such, brands should be cautious about including or referencing any LHF products, even without accompanying imagery, when seeking to rely on the brand exemption.
• Responsibility follows payment and control: the Bubbleology ruling provides welcome further guidance on the SME exemption following the previous ruling relating to Patisserie Valerie. Although the promotion involved licensed third-party IP, the ASA concluded that Bubbleology alone was responsible for the ad because Disney merely licensed promotional materials, did not pay for the ad, and did not benefit directly from the sale of the advertised product. The ASA also accepted that Bubbleology and its franchise network employed fewer than 250 people, confirming that eligibility for the exemption depends on both responsibility for the ad and the size of the wider business. Growing brands should therefore keep employee numbers under review as they expand.

Overall, the decisions demonstrate that advertisers can still successfully promote delivery services, meal deals and branded product ranges, particularly where products have been reformulated to fall outside the LHF classification and where careful use is made of the available exemptions. This is positive for the industry. However, sufficient regard should be had to the nuanced elements of the ASA’s approach and the general restrictions, in particular the identifiability and depiction of LHF products.

The Mills & Reeve advertising team will continue to monitor these developments closely. 

Our content explained