ASA ruling on collaborative promotional advert for ‘less healthy’ foods

The ASA considered two complaints about a Cadbury and Costcutter “Spin to Win” Easter promotion under new rules restricting paid online advertising of identifiable less healthy (HFSS) food products. The Instagram ad featured Cadbury branding, Easter-themed egg imagery and a competition to win Cadbury treats, while a linked webpage promoted the same competition and displayed specific Cadbury Easter products. Bite Back (a food campaigning organisation) argued that both ads promoted identifiable less healthy foods and therefore breached the CAP Code.

The complaint against the Instagram ad was not upheld. The ASA found that the ad was for identifiable less healthy Cadbury Easter products, particularly when viewed alongside the linked webpage. However, the ad itself only promoted the broader Cadbury Easter brand and did not depict any specific less healthy product. Because the Brand Advertising Exemption allows brand advertising that does not feature a specific HFSS product, the Instagram ad fell within the exemption and did not breach the Code.

The complaint against the landing page was upheld. Although Costcutter and Cadbury argued that Cadbury had not paid for the webpage, the ASA concluded the page formed part of the promotional package purchased by Cadbury and was therefore a paid-for online advertisement. Unlike the Instagram ad, the webpage prominently displayed pack shots of specific Cadbury Easter products, including Creme Eggs and Mini Eggs, all classified as less healthy foods. As a result, the page was a paid-for ad for identifiable HFSS products, did not qualify for the brand advertising exemption, and breached CAP Code rule 15.19. The ASA ordered that the webpage must not appear again in its existing form.

For the latest consumer law updates, visit our hub here.