Marketing Matters | June 2025

Welcome to this months' edition of Marketing Matters, where we look at advertising and marketing (A&M) trends in the retail and consumer sector.

We will be looking at:

• Some of the key takeaways for A&M departments following April's ASA rulings.
• Other top ASA stories.
• CMA news for the same period.

ASA rulings – key takeaways for your A&M departments

In June, the ASA handed down 13 rulings. We have highlighted some of the key rulings we think you and your A&M departments should be aware of.

As noted in previous editions of our Marketing Matters articles, on 7 April 2025, the BCAP and CAP Codes were updated in light of the introduction of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (“DMCCA") to reflect changes introduced by the new legislation. Whilst the ASA will continue to consider complaints made prior to 7 April 2025, the old versions of the Codes will be applied to such complaints, with the new Codes being applied to complaints made on or after such date. June's rulings are therefore a mixed bag using both the old and new rules.

Too close for comfort?

A global news organisation was challenged for its use of a pop-up banner featuring the headline “For facts’ sake” in large text and smaller text underneath explaining the importance of fact-checked journalism. The complainant challenged whether the phrase alluded to an expletive and was inappropriately displayed on the website where is could have been seen by children.

The new outlet responded by emphasising the pop-up was a playful and intelligent way, without using actual expletives, to reflect their focus on fact-based and trusted journalism. They also noted that other broadcasters and publishers had used the same and similar phrasings. Additionally, they noted that the phrase was not associated with aggression, it was not directed at another person/group of people and was not demeaning to others.

The company further highlighted that the phrase had appeared on its website since 05 February 2025 and had received 30 million views, with only 1 negative response. The website did not target those under 18 years of age and was, arguably, not likely to be accessed by children.

The ASA noted that the CAP Code stated that ads must not contain anything that was likely to cause serious or widespread offence, and to ensure advertising was prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society. The ASA acknowledged that the ad did not explicitly use the swear word but that it was implied as a play on words. The ASA considered "fuck" a word so likely to offend that it should not generally be used or alluded to in advertising, however, they accepted that the journalism company's editorial policy meant that it was used relatively frequently in their newspaper and website, shaping the context in which the ad was seen and influencing expectations among its readership.

Additionally, the ASA accepted the website had to be actively sought out and that 96.7% of their audience was over 18. The ASA ruled that children were unlikely to see the ad and, therefore, concluded the ad was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence and had not been irresponsible targeted.

Cracking down on unauthorised health claims

Many of the rulings in June related to unauthorised and unsubstantiated health claims, all complaints being upheld by the ASA. In one ad, a company selling natural alternatives to ADHA medication was held to have made unauthorised specific health claims, claimed that a food supplement could prevent, treat or cure ADHD and irresponsibly encouraged people to stop taking medically prescribed treatments for ADHD. In its ruling, the ASA stated that claims which stated or implied a food prevented, treated or cured human disease were not acceptable in marketing communications for foods or food supplement products. They considered that viewers were likely to understand claims in the voice-over at the end of the ad as referencing symptoms of ADHD, and that the product being advertised could treat those symptoms. The claims made were prohibited by the CAP Code and were, therefore, in breach. Only health claims authorised on the Great Britain nutrition and health claims register (the GB NHC Register) were permitted in marketing communications for food or food supplements.

In another ad a online retailer specialising in organic health superfoods made unsubstantiated efficacy claims and discouraged individuals from obtaining essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought. The ASA noted that the CAP Code states that marketers must not discourage essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought. Additionally, the ASA considered that the ad presented the product as being for home use, without any initial or ongoing monitoring or supervision by a medical professional.

Takeaways

The key takeaways from the ASA rulings this month are:

• Take care when using play on words: Using play on words which allude to an expletive may be scrutinised. Be prepared to justify the use of the phrase and providing statistical evidence to clarify viewership may go a way to supporting any rebuttal required.
• Take care with health claims: There are strong rules and prohibitions relating to the advertisement of health/medical products and claims relating to medical care/treatment. Be clear on the rules to avoid challenges from the ASA.

Top ASA stories last month

The ASA's continued focus on sustainability claims

The ASA have released a guide providing an overview of some of the key areas to focus on when making environmental and sustainability claims. In summary, the ASA have indicated that to mitigate the risk of being pulled up on greenwashing claims marketers should:

• Make clear the basis of claims – and, if not immediately obvious you will need to give consumers information to explain the basis of claims;
• Be clear on the meaning of terms;
• Make sure you can substantiate claims to support claims with appropriate evidence before publication; and
• Take into consideration the full lifecycle – as a robust full lifecycle analysis to support the claim will be required/scrutinised.

The full ASA guidance can be found here.

It is worth highlighting the recent Which? report on Green Claims and how to spot possible greenwashing while shopping. The organisation's investigation looked at a sample of 1,000 online retail listings containing green claims, concluding that many were vague, unsubstantiated or overblown. The report, with a target audience of well-intended shoppers willing to spend a little more for eco-friendly, natural, sustainable and biodegradable products/services, provides a useful breakdown of the CMA's Code principles relating to Green Claims and real examples of where retailers have fallen short.

Recent CMA activity

Newly released guidance for consumers, businesses and advisors

On 10 June, the CMA published three separate guidance notes:

1. For consumers – to provide information on their rights and what to do when things go wrong;
2. For businesses – to provide information on growing their business, selling products/services and engaging with the CMA; and
3. For advisors – to provide information and guidance for people who advise businesses on competition and consumer issues.

These guides include details on how to report a consumer problem to the CMA and are likely to be the CMA's latest development in their enforcement rights pursuant to the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumer Act 2024. The full guidance notes can be found here.