Guidance has been published on how new rules restricting the advertising of ‘less healthy food’ (LHF) will be enforced.

The outcome of the consultation has been published today (4 December) by the Committees of Advertising Practice (CAP), which is responsible for writing and maintaining the advertising codes. The guidance explains how the new law – banning less healthy food and drink from being advertised online and on TV pre-watershed – will be work in practice.

The codes written by CAP are then enforced by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and Ofcom (in the case of TV), both of which have formally approved. Currently, advertisers have agreed to voluntarily comply with the new rules after the introduction of the law was delayed in order to write in an exemption for brand advertising.

Food brands up investment in out-of-home by 28% ahead of HFSS rules

As a result, while the law will be enforced from 5 January 2026 brands have, in effect, been operating as though the law has been live since the beginning of October.

The statement confirms the headline rules, that ads for “identifiable” less healthy food and drink will be banned from appearing on television from 5.30am to 9pm (pre-watershed), as well as on on-demand services regulated by Ofcom during the same time period. Paid-for online media will have the ban in play at all times.

While these rules are fairly black-and-white, they open up many potential grey areas, which the guidance seeks to shed some light on. These include for brand advertising and influencer activity.

The brand advertising exemption

The brand exemption applies where advertising does not depict a specific less healthy product. An example would be an ad like McDonald’s ‘Raise Your Arches’, which while for a company with many products in the LHF category, does not depict any actual food in that category (or indeed food at all).

The word ‘depict’, however, can be more broadly interpreted than just displaying an image of a LHF product. The guidance recommends advertisers should “exercise caution when including food or drink products or product-related imagery or references in a brand advertisement”.

How ‘less healthy food’ ad restrictions may change the way brands are built

CAP gives the example of imagery representative of a specific LHF, such as a brand character representative of a specific product. This would be unlikely to fall in the scope of the brand advertising exemption, meaning the ban would apply. However, imagery that is “representative of a brand or a range of products, that does not depict any specific less healthy product within the range” is likely to be exempt.

The guidance also tells brands to take care to ensure the combination of colours, logos and other brand cues they combine in an advert do not identify a specific less healthy product.

It is not just product packaging and brand assets that advertisers must be cautious of. Ads can fall under scope of the ban if they have realistic depictions of a product without packaging, the guidance warns.

Food and drink that is visually indistinguishable from LHF products would also be in scope of the ban. For example, if a brand has brought out a compliant, healthier version of an existing LHF product, which out of packaging looks virtually identical to the LHF product, it must make clear this product is the compliant version in the ad.

As well as imagery, caution must be taken around brand and product names. An example given is that a brand name which is exactly the same as the full name of a specific less healthy product will fall under the scope of the ban.

Every marketer must recognise they have moral choices to make

The key to judging if an advert is in scope of the ban is what the guidance calls “the identifiability test”. This judges what an “average consumer” would perceive the ad to be for.

Obviously, identifiable LHF products would be banned as per this test. However, the guidance from CAP raises the prospect the ban could potentially apply more broadly.

If a combination of factors – including logos, branding or imagery relating to a “type of less healthy product [the brand] is known for supplying” – mean that it is likely a UK consumer “could reasonably be expected to be able to identify the advertisement as being for a less healthy product” then the ad could be banned.

This potentially opens the door to broader interpretations of the restrictions, meaning brands – particularly those associated with LHF products – will have to be cautious when utilising the brand advertising exemption.

Influencer and retail media implications

The incoming law bans LHF products from being advertised on online channels completely, subject to the identifiability principles outlined above.

Social media advertising falls under this scope. While activity on brands’ organic channels does not fall under the rules, any paid-for activity does, including “promoted” or “boosted” activity, as well as influencer work.

An obvious example of where influencers would be banned from promoting LHF products is where a brand has paid an individual to promote their company. However, the rules could also apply to ‘gifting’ practices.

In these cases, the ASA will “assess the precise circumstances”. The judgement will relate to whether the gifting has been made “for” influencer content, meaning whether the gift was given with the intention of driving influencer advertising.

Creator content set to overtake professionally produced content in ad revenue, says report

The new rules will also have implications for retail media. The guidance notes that, ordinarily, communications within retail sites are out of the scope of advertising legislation. However, the rules may apply where the commercial relationship between the retailer and food brand “includes a requirement for the placement of a product listing that could reasonably be considered an advertisement”.

For example, where a food brand has a commercial relationship with a supermarket to more prominently feature its product on pages, this could be considered in the scope of the rules. This could effectively mean brands may be banned from promoting LHF products through retail media.