The UK’s Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) has prohibited online advertisements from the meal-replacement company Huel and the personal nutrition firm Zoe.
Specifically, the ASA banned two paid Facebook ads for Huel and one for Zoe, all featuring Steven Bartlett, an investor in Zoe and a director at Huel. These advertisements appeared in February and March 2024.
The ASA concluded that neither company revealed their professional relationship with Bartlett in these ads, thereby misleading consumers into believing his endorsements were independent reviews. This violates advertising guidelines.
In one of Huel’s banned ads, Bartlett was shown drinking a product with the statement: “This is Huel’s best product.” The second advertisement displayed him in a video stating: “This is the best product that Huel have released.”
Complainants challenged whether the omission of Bartlett’s commercial interest in Huel constituted a misleading representation, according to the ASA.
Huel responded by asserting that Bartlett is “a well-known celebrity,” arguing that when celebrities endorse products, consumers generally understand the endorsements occur within a commercial context. This reasoning supports their claim that no explicit disclosure was needed for the nature of the relationship.
Despite these assertions, the advertising watchdog determined that both Facebook advertisements were “likely to mislead” consumers.
In the Zoe advertisement, Bartlett appears with a patch on his arm and claims, “If you haven’t tried Zoe yet, give it a shot. It might just change your life.” Zoe’s response mirrored that of Huel, emphasizing the significance of Bartlett’s celebrity status and indicating that the ad was clearly identifiable as sponsored.
A spokesperson for Zoe communicated, “Neither the Code nor any of the ASA’s guidance implies that detailed explanations of an ambassador’s relationship with a brand are necessary. We maintain that our advertisement adhered to the Cap Code.” They further expressed a commitment to transparency and a desire for more guidance to navigate future advertising compliance.
Huel was not immediately available for comment.
Importantly, in the previous year, the ASA banned two other Huel advertisements for unsubstantiated health and financial claims, asserting that their meal replacement shakes were superior to traditional diets. Additionally, one month later, Huel withdrew an ad tailored for students, highlighting product affordability.
