Marketing Matters | Review of February 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 December's ASA rulings.
• Other top ASA stories.
• CMA news for the same period.

ASA rulings – key takeaways

In February, the ASA handed down 28 rulings – an increase from January's 19 rulings, but fewer than the last few months of 2025. We have highlighted some of the key rulings we think you and your A&M departments should be aware of.

The key principles to take from this month's rulings are:

• Supporting evidence should be specific to the product being advertised – general evidence, or evidence relating to other products, is unlikely to be sufficient.
• When making green claims, retailers must specify whether they apply to a product's full life cycle (from raw material to disposal) or part of it. If such claims only apply to part of it, retailers must specify which part.
• When engaging in comparative advertising and/or price matching against other businesses, retailers must make clear to consumers where comparisons are made against comparable products as opposed to like for like/identical items. They must also tell consumers how comparable products are selected. In addition, linking to this information as part of small print is not enough, according to the below ASA ruling.
• If the ASA contacts you, respond. Ignoring correspondence is a CAP breach in itself, and is likely to result in an adverse ruling.

Ensure you hold sufficient evidence for environmental claims

The ASA reaffirmed their stricter approach to retailers making sustainability-related claims. This ruling (detailed below) reiterates that business must specify whether green claims apply to a product's whole lifecycle, and if they don't, to make clear to which part of a lifecycle they apply.

A producer of bamboo-based nappies and wipes was found to have breached CAP rules on three environmental claims made in adverts for its products. In the ad, the producer stated that its (a) nappies were made from "100% sustainable bamboo fibre", (b) wipes would fully biodegrade over a short timeframe, and (c) products were "kinder to the planet".

On the first two complaints, the ASA found that the evidence held by the producer to support the claims was insufficient. In the ASA's view, consumers would understand from the adverts that the products had no negative environmental impact across their whole life cycle and that the wipes were fully biodegradable. The evidence held by the producer did not support this, and the adverts were therefore misleading.

Regarding the third complaint, the ASA considered that the phrase "kinder to the planet" was a comparison. However, it was not clear what the comparison was being made to. The producer stated that they intended the comparison to mean that the bamboo they used in their products was more sustainable than the wood and plastic in similar products, but the ASA found that this was not sufficiently clear.

Are your price comparisons fair and accurate?

When engaging in comparative advertising and/or price matching against other businesses, retailers must make clear to consumers where comparisons are made against comparable products as opposed to like for like/identical items. They must also tell consumers how comparable products are selected. In addition, linking to this information as part of small print is not enough, according to the below ASA ruling.

A well-known supermarket chain was subject to three complaints from a rival retailer over claims relating to its "everyday essentials" price-matching program appearing on its website.

The first two complaints were rejected. However, the third complaint was upheld. The supermarket had price-matched its products against "comparable products" where an identical product was not sold by the complainant. However, the ASA felt that this was not made clear enough, and that customers would therefore understand that all of the price-matches were against like-for-like products. The ASA also determined that, even where customers understood that price-matches may be against comparable (rather than identical) products, it was not clear how the comparable products were selected by the supermarket. While there was a link to a webpage giving further information, this was in the small print at the bottom of the webpage and was therefore not helpful to customers. In addition, the ASA determined that some of the comparison products selected were not fair comparisons – for example, ginger ale was compared to tonic water, and white bread compared to wholemeal. 

Top ASA stories last month

Influencer ads

The ASA has published new research revealing that many people struggle to recognise when influencer content is advertising, often confusing sponsored content with everyday social media posts. This confusion is heightened on platforms such as TikTok and Instagram, where algorithms frequently surface posts from unfamiliar creators, making it harder for users to distinguish at a glance whether something is actually an advert.

The ASA research shows strong public demand for transparency. Although influencer content now plays a major role in how people discover products and services - with around a third of the UK online population following influencers for recommendations - viewers want clarity. Eight in ten people say influencers should clearly label paid content upfront so audiences are not left guessing.

Despite this, confidence in recognising ads does not match reality. While roughly half of UK online users say they feel confident in identifying influencer advertising, testing real posts shows that influencer ads are much harder to spot than traditional brand adverts. Around three‑quarters of people can identify a standard brand ad, but only about half can confidently identify an influencer advert - and more than a quarter miss them altogether. Some genuine reviews are mistaken for ads, and some paid posts are misidentified as unpaid content

The CAP Code already requires influencers to label advertising content. The ASA notes that compliance is improving, and their key recommendation is to use "#ad" for sponsored advertisements.

Effects and Epilepsy

The ASA has published an article highlighting the need for advertisers to avoid visual effects or techniques that are likely to trigger seizures in people with photosensitive epilepsy (PSE). This requirement applies to both TV and non-broadcast media adverts. PSE is a relatively rare form of epilepsy, affecting 3-5% of people with epilepsy. Visual triggers that may adversely affect a person with PSE include flashing lights, rapid scene changes, and high contrast geometric moving patterns.

The ASA noted that complaints about such adverts are uncommon, largely because TV ads are tested for PSE triggers before being cleared for broadcast by Clearcast before they air. In cases where a serious risk is identified, the ASA can order an advert's immediate withdrawal, pending the outcome of an investigation.

The ASA issued practical guidance for marketers, stating that the onus is on the advertisers to ensure that their ads do not cause harm at the outset, rather than expecting people with PSE to avoid media altogether, as this would be unrealistic and discriminatory. Although TV programmes sometimes contain warnings that the content may adversely affect photosensitive viewers, an ad could be found to break CAP rules if it contained such material at all. Consequently, the ASA advise advertisers not to rely on a similar warning system.

Epilepsy Action have an article on their website on creating accessible visual content for people with epilepsy, which contains advice for preparing content and testing it before you publish it.

Recent CMA Activity

Anti-competitive conduct in relation to hotel accommodation services

On 24 February, the CMA opened an investigation into whether several major hotel chains have potentially breached Chapter 1 of the Competition Act 1998. The investigation concerns the exchange of commercially sensitive information via a shared hotel data services provider. At this stage, the CMA has not reached a view as to whether there is sufficient evidence of an infringement of competition law. An initial evidence-gathering phase will run from February to August 2026, during which organisations and individuals with relevant information must preserve certain documents under section 25B of the Competition Act 1998.

The CMA issues its first penalty under new fining powers

On 13 February 2026, the CMA issued its first penalty under its new fining powers, granted by the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA), for failure to comply with an information notice. The fine was imposed in relation to an information notice originally served on the company in July 2025 as part of the CMA's evidence-fathering process. The £437,000 penalty is 75% of the maximum fine amount the CMA can levy for this type of non-compliance. Importantly, this fine does not relate to any finding of consumer law infringement, but rather it penalises the company solely for failing to comply with the information notice. Under its enforcement powers, the CMA can issue a fixed penalty of up to 1% of the company’s annual turnover for this type of breach.