Marketing Matters | Review of April 2026

Welcome to this month's 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 ASA rulings.
• Other top ASA stories.
• CMA news for the same period.

ASA rulings – key takeaways

First rulings under LHF regulations

The ASA investigated four complaints under the new rules restricting online and TV advertising for "less healthy foods" ("LHFs") – see our article here for more details. The complaints were made against two major supermarkets, a chain takeaway restaurant, and a travel company. Retailers who sell foods that are high in fat, sugar, and/or salt should think about the following:

• The key test for whether a food is an LHF is the government's Nutrient Profiling Model. In the case of the chain takeaway restaurant, the complaint was not upheld because the foods shown were not LHFs – retailers should carefully consider whether their adverts show any foods that might be classed as LHFs.
• An advert that prominently shows both LHFs and non-LHFs will be caught by the regulations. However, an LHF appearing incidentally in an advert not focused on the LHF likely will not. It is still probably safer to avoid showing LHFs at all unless unavoidable, though.
• An advert may be caught by the regulations if it shows branding that is synonymous with an LHF product, even if it doesn't show the product itself.

Provide clear promotion information to avoid palaver

The ASA investigated a ready meal manufacturer over a promotion allowing customers to enter a competition by buying applicable products. The key takeaways are:

• For competitions where customers can enter by buying a product, the eligible products must be made explicitly clear. Avoid advertising the competition on products which aren't eligible for entry, as this could create a misleading impression.
• Remember that causing unnecessary disappointment to consumers is, in itself, a breach of the CAP Code. Misleading consumers into believing that a product allows entry into a competition when it in fact doesn't is likely to cause unnecessary disappointment.

Avoid advertorial uncertainty

A pet product retailer and two import-export businesses were investigated for adverts appearing in the form of faux comparison websites, purporting to give unbiased reviews of products sold by the businesses who ran the sites. The ASA's conclusions were:

• Websites that appear independent of a retailer but are in fact owned by the retailer and used to promote their products, such as product review or comparison websites, are within the scope of the CAP Code.
• Under the CAP Code, the commercial intent of an advert must be clear and advertisers must not purport to act outside their business. Running a product comparison website to promote the retailer's own products will likely fall foul of both of these points.
• Intent is not especially relevant. In two of the cases the comparison websites were outright advertorial content, while the third argued that their comparison website was genuinely objective, compared a wide range of products, and wasn't just made to sell the retailer's own products. The ASA did not draw a distinction, and considered that all three websites broke the rules.
• A retailer disclosing that they operate the comparison website is not enough to avoid breaking the rules, unless the disclosure is sufficiently obvious to change consumer perceptions. Here, putting the disclosure on the website's "about" page was insufficient.

Top ASA stories last month

Promoting greener home products

As more consumers look to lower their energy bills and reduce their carbon footprint, demand for solar panels, heat pumps and other "green home" products is rising. The ASA provides the following guidance for retailers offering green home products to ensure pricing and savings claims are clear and accurate in ads.

• Pricing must reflect reality: headline prices should represent what consumers are likely to pay, with any conditions or additional charges made clear upfront. Hidden qualifications or complex steps to uncover the actual price are likely to mislead.
• "Up to" or "from" claims require evidence: claims such as "save up to £X" or percentage reductions must be supported by evidence showing a significant proportion of customers can achieve the stated saving.
• Avoid vague or exaggerated language: terms like "drastically" in the context of reducing bills risk overstating benefits if they are open to interpretation and not clearly supported by evidence.
• Comparisons must be transparent: any price comparisons to other energy sources, competitors or previous prices should clearly explain what is being compared and on what basis.

Follow the link for more detail.

Money-making courses

The ASA recently investigated a number of advertisers for misleading practices across ads promoting business-growth and "money-making" courses. Marketing for income-generation and coaching products should avoid exaggeration, must not imply that exceptional success is typical, and must provide strong evidence where claims could materially impact consumer decisions.

One key concern was the use of inflated income claims, including achieving substantial profit margins or "overnight" success. Advertisers must be able to substantiate such claims with evidence, demonstrating that such results were representative of the average customer.

The ASA took issue with the way testimonials and personal success narratives were frequently used to create an unrealistic impression of attainable success, even when disclaimers were included.

Additional concerns include the use of "free" offers that are not genuinely free, and time-limited promotions that were not supported by real deadlines. Advertisers must clearly distinguish between free and paid elements, and ensure urgency claims do not place undue pressure on consumers.

Follow the link for more detail.

Recent CMA Activity

The CMA gives Final Infringement Notice under its new "direct" consumer enforcement powers

On 15 April 2026, the CMA issued a Final Infringement Notice to a motoring organisation and imposed a financial penalty of £4.2 million for unlawful drip pricing practices on its online lesson booking platforms. As part of settlement, the in-breach company will refund booking fees amounting to around £760,000 paid by more than 80,000 affected consumers.

The infringement centred on "drip pricing", where a mandatory £3 booking fee was excluded from the headline price and only introduced later in the booking process. This practice is illegal as businesses must show customers the total price from the outset.

The decision highlights the CMA's ability to act quickly in enforcing its new consumer protection regime, imposing significant fines (of up to 10% of global turnover) and ordering enhanced consumer measures including financial compensation. With drip pricing firmly established as a key priority for the CMA, businesses that use complex pricing structures or add-on charges are encouraged to review their charging practices to avoid investigation and/or enforcement action.

Follow the link for more detail.