HFSS: ASA rulings provide clarity on where “brand advertising” ends and product advertising begins

The question

How will the ASA apply the new UK advertising restrictions on paid-for online ads and pre-watershed TV/VOD advertising for identifiable “less healthy” food and drink (LHF) products in practice, particularly where ads look like “brand” campaigns.

The key takeaway

Across a number of rulings published in July 2026, the ASA treated LHF “identifiability” as the central risk. In these rulings, if a paid ad could reasonably be seen as depicting an identifiable LHF product (including via brand characters), the brand advertising exemption did not apply. It also confirmed that, where a brand ad includes imagery of a non-LHF product that is visually distinguishable from a specific LHF food, the ad could benefit from the brand advertising exemption, and thus not breach the new restrictions.

The background

On 5 January 2026, new CAP and BCAP rules took effect restricting ads for identifiable LHF products in paid-for online places and in daytime TV/VOD services (between 5:30 and 21:00).

LHF products are a subset of HFSS products – those that fall within one of the 13 defined statutory categories:

A key carve-out in the advertising restrictions is the “brand advertising exemption” which allows brands to advertise their brand (or the brand of a specific range of products). However, the exemption does not apply to ads that depict a specific LHF product. The ASA’s July rulings provide helpful examples of how the ASA will apply the ‘brand advertising exemption’ and what businesses should consider when aiming to qualify for the exemption.

The development

The ASA published the following LHF rulings relating to the brand advertising exemption on 8 July:

Mars Wrigley Confectionery UK Ltd t/a Mars (upheld)

A paid Instagram ad for M&M’s featured the round green and oval yellow M&M’s brand characters. No product packaging or food imagery was shown. The oval yellow character specifically depicted Peanut M&M’s because only Peanut M&M’s had oval-shaped lentils. Therefore, while the round green character represented a range of variants, the oval yellow character was a personification of a specific LHF product in Category 4 (confectionery). Therefore, the brand advertising exemption did not apply.

Domino’s Pizza UK & Ireland Ltd t/a Domino’s (not upheld)

Two paid social media ads on YouTube and Facebook showed photographs of Vegi Supreme pizzas with classic crusts (which were not HFSS products), promoting the “Price Slice” offer with pizzas from £10. The ASA conducted a detailed visual comparison and found the depicted pizzas were visually distinguishable from all HFSS variants (stuffed crust, plant-based, gluten-free) due to differences in crust thickness and shape. Therefore, the ads qualified as brand advertisements and were exempt from the restrictions.

Papa John’s (GB) Ltd t/a Papa Johns (not upheld)

A paid Facebook ad showing a photograph of a 10-slice Garden Party pizza in a box, promoted “THE BIG PRICE CUT” with prices for small, medium, and large pizzas. The pizza depicted was the non-HFSS original crust Garden Party. The ASA compared it visually to all other pizzas in the range and found it was visually distinguishable from all HFSS variants (meat toppings, different vegetable combinations, different crusts). Therefore, the ad qualified as a brand advertisement and was exempt from the restrictions.

Kentucky Fried Chicken (Great Britain) Ltd t/a KFC (not upheld)

A TV ad, VOD ad, and three paid social media ads (Reddit, YouTube, TikTok) promoted the “Double Deal” for £5.99, showing images of two breaded chicken burgers and two cola drinks. The TV/VOD versions also included a brief shot of chicken pieces frying. The Fillet Burger, Pepsi Max, and Mini Fillets shown were all non-HFSS. The Zinger Burger (visually indistinguishable from the Fillet Burger) was also non-HFSS. Other KFC burgers (which were HFSS) were visually distinguishable. Pepsi Max Cherry and Diet Pepsi were also non-HFSS. Therefore, the ads qualified as brand advertisements and were exempt from the restrictions.

Why is this important?

Perhaps most importantly, the ASA has shown that it will examine whether brand assets functionally depict a specific LHF product. The ad using M&M’s anthropomorphised characters was upheld because the oval yellow character was treated as specifically depicting Peanut M&M’s (a specific LHF product), while the green character did not (because several different M&M products are round in shape).

Second, the ASA has set a practical test for product imagery in brand-led campaigns. If the pictured food is not named/identified, the ASA will consider whether the image is ‘visually indistinguishable’ from any specific LHF product in the advertiser’s range. Each of KFC, Papa John’s and Domino’s Pizza avoided breach because the depicted food products were non-HFSS (and therefore not LHF) and were visibly distinguishable from LHF variants (eg by crust or toppings for the pizzas, or by bun for the burgers).

Any practical tips?

• Where seeking to rely on a brand advertising exemption but including images of products in the ad, creative teams should run a “visual indistinguishability” review against the product ranges which include LHF items and, if necessary, add clear identifiers to non-LHF items so as to allow them to be visually distinguishable from similar looking but LHF products.
• Brand teams should treat product mascots or brand-related characters as potential “product depictions” and test whether they map to a particular LHF variant of a product. If there is any possibility that a mascot or character may be deemed to depict a specific product, avoid using it in ads that are seeking to rely on the brand advertising exemption.

Autumn 2026