How the system is put together
UK advertising is regulated through a self-regulatory and co-regulatory system. The Committee of Advertising Practice writes the code for non-broadcast advertising, and the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice writes the code for broadcast. The Advertising Standards Authority administers both, investigates complaints, and publishes rulings.
The system has statutory backstops. Ofcom has responsibility for broadcast advertising standards, exercised through the co-regulatory arrangement, and trading standards and the CMA can act under consumer protection law where the self-regulatory route is not effective.
The practical consequence is a system with a low barrier to entry for complainants, a fast process by regulatory standards, and sanctions that are largely reputational and access-based rather than financial.
The tests that actually decide cases
Two provisions do most of the work in food cases.
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. The word materially matters: the question is whether the misleading element is likely to affect a consumer's decision, not whether every detail is precise.
Advertisers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. This is the substantiation rule, and it is why so many rulings turn on what the advertiser could produce rather than on what is true.
Alongside these sit the rules on qualification, which prevent a qualification from contradicting a main claim, and on comparisons, which must be with products meeting the same need and must compare material and verifiable features.
For food specifically, there are additional provisions covering health and nutrition claims, which align with the claims regime, along with rules on advertising to children and other defined areas.
| Provision | What it asks |
|---|---|
| Must not materially mislead | Would the misleading element affect a consumer's decision |
| Substantiation | Does the advertiser hold documentary evidence for objective claims |
| Qualification | Does the small print contradict the main claim |
| Comparisons | Are the products meeting the same need, and are the features material and verifiable |
| Food and health claims | Do nutrition and health claims comply with the claims regime |
| Obviously identifiable as marketing | Would the audience recognise this as advertising |
Structure set out by this newsroom from the published rules named in the sources below. It is not a survey, a measurement or a market study.
Overall impression, not literal truth
The most instructive feature of ASA reasoning, for anyone reading packs, is that it assesses the overall impression created rather than the literal accuracy of individual statements.
An advertisement composed entirely of true statements can be found to be misleading if the impression it creates is not accurate. Equally, wording that appears loose can be acceptable if the overall impression is not likely to mislead.
This is why the small type solution frequently fails. Adding a qualification does not neutralise an impression created by prominent material, because the assessment looks at what the audience takes away.
What actually happens to a complaint
Complaints can be made by anyone, including competitors, and are free. The ASA assesses whether there is a case to answer under the codes. Many cases are resolved informally, where an advertiser agrees to amend or withdraw a communication, and these are recorded but not published as full rulings.
Where a formal investigation is opened, the advertiser is asked to respond and to provide evidence. The ASA Council then decides whether the code has been breached, and the ruling is published, naming the advertiser and setting out the complaint, the response, the assessment and the outcome.
Where a complaint is not upheld, that is published too, which is a genuinely useful feature: the published record includes cases where advertisers were found to have substantiated their claims.
What follows a ruling
The advertisement must not appear again in its current form. Beyond that, sanctions include the publication of the ruling itself, which is the primary consequence, ad alerts to media owners advising them not to accept the advertiser's material, withdrawal of trading privileges, and in the online space arrangements that can affect paid search advertising.
Persistent offenders can be referred to trading standards or to the CMA for action under consumer protection law, where financial penalties are available. For broadcast, Ofcom has statutory powers.
The self-regulatory model works largely because publication is a meaningful cost for businesses that care about their brands, and because media owners cooperate. Where a business does not care about either, the statutory backstops are what the system relies on.
Why rulings are worth reading
For anyone interested in what food marketing is actually allowed to say, published rulings are the most valuable resource available, and they are free and searchable.
They contain the specific wording that was challenged, the evidence the advertiser produced, and the reasoning that led to a conclusion. That is a level of detail no guidance document provides, and it is where the abstract standard becomes concrete.
They also demonstrate how frequently the answer turns on evidence rather than on the claim being false. An advertiser who could not produce substantiation loses whether or not the claim was accurate, which is the substantiation rule working as designed.
Where this stops
This article describes a process. It names no advertiser and describes no individual ruling, because summarising a case would mean making a claim about a named company, which this publication does not do. The rulings themselves are published in full and are the right source.
Elsewhere on Feedworthy. Green claims on food: the code, the Act and what changed. Farm assurance logos: what a scheme audit actually covers. The economics of a price match scheme.