Advertising and Marketing | UK Regulatory Outlook July 2025

UK updates

ASA update on tackling ads for weight-loss prescription-only medicines 

The Advertising Standards Authority has published an update on its work to tackle ads for weight-loss prescription-only medicines (POMs). 

The ASA has been monitoring and investigating potentially problem ads for weight-loss POMs since December 2024, when it issued a warning to businesses and individuals advertising these medicines and instructed them to remove their online ads. See this MarketingLaw article. 

The regulator has now upheld complaints against nine advertisers, whose ads were identified for investigation using the ASA's Active Ad monitoring system, which uses AI to search for online ads that might be in breach of the CAP Code.  

The rulings make it clear that ads for all injectable forms of weight-loss medications are POMs and cannot be advertised, even when the medicines are not named, but are referred to indirectly using claims, images and other references, such as "Obesity Treatment Jab" or "Weight Loss Pen". Even when the medicines are not explicitly featured, but the ad includes images of medical injection pens or vials of liquid, the ad will be in breach. 

The update also reveals that the ASA's monitoring programme found that, of 10,000 ads for weight-loss treatments, 80 were found to use directly or mention a named weight-loss POM. This amounts to a compliance rate of 99% for this part of the rules, which the ASA says is encouraging . However, most of the ads did not name a weight-loss POM, but used imagery of medical injection pens or strongly implied the use of them. 

This remains a high-priority area for the ASA and it has additional investigations under way, with rulings to follow (many involving affiliate advertisers). 

Government publishes consultation on exemption of brand advertising from HFSS restrictions 

The government has published its consultation on the "brand advertising" exemption from the advertising restrictions on less healthy food and drink (HFSS) (high in fat, salt or sugar) on TV and online (see this Regulatory Outlook). The consultation focuses on draft regulations (published alongside the consultation) necessary to bring the exemption into effect: the draft Advertising (Less Healthy Food) (Brand Advertising Exemption) Regulations 2025. Essentially, the government wants to know if the drafting is clear. 

The draft regulations define "brand advertisement" as an ad that "promotes a brand, including the brand of a range of products". The definition excludes ads that depict a specific less healthy food or drink product, or that show a photo of such a product that is indistinguishable from a specific less healthy product. These ads will not be able to benefit from the exemption. 

The draft regulations also contain definitions for "depict", "range of products", "specific" (product) and "photographic image" and the consultation sets out the government's intentions behind the definitions. For example, the government has defined "depict" broadly to include not only the naming of a specific less healthy product but also branding techniques such as jingles and audio cues, whether used in isolation or in combination, because the cumulative effective of multiple branding techniques could lead to a specific less healthy product being identifiable.  

The draft regulations are also intended to make clear that ads by brands whose names include the name of one of their specific less healthy food or drink products do not fall within the definition of "depict". Instead, the government intends ads to be assessed objectively on their content so that all brands are treated equally.  

The deadline for responses is 6 August 2025.  

EU updates 

EU Green Claims Directive to be scrapped (or not) 

Confusion reigned last month after the European Commission announced that, in line with its simplification agenda, it intended to withdraw the legislative proposal for a Green Claims Directive, which would oblige companies to provide verified evidence for any green claims made. The decision was announced just one working day before the final round of negotiations in the trilogue of the Commission, the Council of the EU and the European Parliament, which was cancelled following the announcement.  

The Parliament's co-rapporteurs then held a press conference reacting to the Commission's announcement and saying that the issue eventually cited by the Commission as its reason for withdrawing the directive (that Parliament did not intend to exempt micro-enterprises from the rules contrary to the Commission's simplification plans) was, in fact, not an issue, as it had already been agreed to include the exemption in the directive. Following the Commission's intervention, Italy withdrew its support for the directive, meaning that the Council could not support it. The co-rapporteurs have said, however, that Parliament is ready to resume the trilogue negotiations to "find a solution", and the Commission has now said that it will proceed with the directive, as long as micro enterprises are excluded from its scope.  

The confusion has resulted in questions over the legality of the Commission's actions. Whether the directive can be resurrected remains to be seen.