Online adverts for meal-replacement business Huel and personal nutrition company Zoe have been banned by the UK’s advertising watchdog.
The Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) has banned two paid-for Facebook adverts for Huel and one for Zoe, all of which featured Steven Bartlett who is an investor in Zoe and a director at Huel. The adverts were visible in February and March 2024.
Go deeper with GlobalData
Huel’s meal-replacement range includes ready-to-drink products which are sold to major retailers across the UK. Personalised nutrition group Zoe sells a ‘gut shot’ product through retailers M&S and Ocado nationwide.
The ASA ruled that neither company disclosed their professional links with Bartlett in their respective adverts, thus misleading the consumer to think the views he stated were an independent review, according to the agency.
One of the two banned adverts for Huel saw Bartlett pictured drinking one of their products with a quote saying: “This is Huel’s best product.”
In the second advert, he was seen in a video saying: “This is the best product that Huel have released.”
How well do you really know your competitors?
Access the most comprehensive Company Profiles on the market, powered by GlobalData. Save hours of research. Gain competitive edge.
Thank you!
Your download email will arrive shortly
Not ready to buy yet? Download a free sample
We are confident about the unique quality of our Company Profiles. However, we want you to make the most beneficial decision for your business, so we offer a free sample that you can download by submitting the below form
By GlobalDataThe complainants, who understood Bartlett was a director at Huel, challenged “whether the omission of his commercial interest in the company from the ads was misleading”, according to the ASA.
Huel’s response claimed that Bartlett was “a well-known celebrity” and when “celebrities endorsed products, consumers generally understood they did so in the context of a commercial relationship with the company behind the product”.
The nutrition company added: “Consumers had no doubt about the existence of such commercial relationships when they saw the endorsement within a paid-for ad taken out by a company.
“This expectation then removed the need for the commercial relationship to be explicitly stated, and that this was the case regardless of the exact nature of the relationship.”
Nevertheless, the advertising watchdog still deemed the two Facebook adverts as “likely to mislead” consumers.
Meanwhile, in the advert for Zoe, Bartlett is pictured with a patch on his arm alongside a quote saying: “If you haven’t tried Zoe yet, give it a shot. It might just change your life.”
Zoe’s response was similar to that of Huel, claiming Bartlett’s celebrity status was crucial as well as saying the “post was obviously identifiable as an ad” due to the ‘Sponsored’ label.
Just Drinks asked Zoe for comment on the decision to ban the adverts.
A spokesperson said: “Neither the Code nor any of the ASA’s guidance suggests that it is necessary to go into granular detail about the precise nature of an ambassador’s commercial relationship with a brand. We believe the ad was compliant with the Cap Code.
“We respect the ASA’s work in upholding transparency in online advertising and have provided a written assurance that it will not appear again in that form. We would welcome further guidance to bring clarity on the effect of this decision, to ensure that all our future advertising complies with the Cap Code.”
Huel could not immediately be reached for comment.
Last year, the ASA banned two other Huel adverts on Facebook for making unsupported health and finance-related claims. The agency said paid social media advertising from Huel claimed that its meal replacement shakes were cheaper and healthier than a traditional diet.
One month later, Huel removed an advert targeting students on TikTok emphasising the affordability of their products.
