ASA upholds three rulings against online pharmacy for non‑compliant social media advertising of prescription‑only medicines

Executive Summary 

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) recently published three rulings against Juniper, an online pharmacy offering medicated weight loss programmes, finding that its social media advertising breached the CAP Code on multiple grounds. The rulings form part of the ASA’s ongoing enforcement action concerning the advertising of prescription‑only medicines (POMs) used for weight loss.

They provide important guidance on how website design may contribute to the unlawful promotion of POMs to consumers, and on the need for time-limited sales promotions for POMs to be conducted in a socially responsible manner. The rulings also reinforce the ASA’s positions on harmful gender stereotypes and on the requirement to clearly identify advertising content on social media. 

There is currently considerable regulator and media attention to unlawful advertising for POMs, particularly in relation to medication for aesthetic applications such as weight loss products, products to slow hair loss and/or promote hair regrowth, and cosmetic applications such as dermal fillers. Marketers of these products need to be mindful of the law restricting the promotion of POMs to consumers.

Background

Juniper is an online pharmacy offering medicated weight loss programmes, including treatments using POMs. Published on 8 April 2026, the rulings address three distinct advertising strategies: a paid Instagram advertisement promoting Black Friday discounts on weight loss medication; a paid influencer collaboration featuring a new mother on Facebook; and paid posts by overseas marketing professionals in Facebook weight loss support groups.

Issues

Across the three rulings, the ASA considered the following issues:

• Whether the advertisements promoted POMs to the public.
• Whether Black Friday promotions for over‑the‑counter (OTC) weight loss medicines and medicated weight loss programmes exerted undue pressure on consumers and were therefore socially irresponsible.
• Whether an influencer advertisement featuring a new mother exploited insecurities relating to body image and furthered harmful gender stereotypes, contrary to the CAP Code requirements on social responsibility and the avoidance of harm and offence.
• Whether posts, and replies to posts, made by paid marketing professionals in Facebook groups were clearly identifiable as marketing communications.

Promotion of POMs to the public

In each ruling, the ASA found that the CAP Code had been breached on this ground. The Human Medicines Regulations 2012 and the CAP Code prohibit the advertising of POMs to the public, and in two of the rulings the key issue was whether Juniper’s website structure complied with that prohibition. 

Juniper argued that the “filtering page” which consumers were directed to if they clicked through the advertisements, asking whether they were new to, or already using, weight loss medication, operated, in effect, as a homepage. On that basis, Juniper contended that the page was compliant with the CAP Code, as it did not contain specific information about POMs and did not itself constitute advertising for POMs. Only once a consumer chose to proceed beyond that page, thereby ceasing to be a “casual browser”, were they directed to content relating to POMs.

The ASA rejected this argument, finding that the filtering page was not equivalent to a homepage or landing page, but instead functioned as a gateway that directed consumers, based on their responses, to subsequent landing pages prominently featuring named POMs, including Wegovy. In reaching this conclusion, the ASA relied on guidance in the MHRA’s Blue Guide, which states that website homepages should not refer to named POMs, and treated landing pages accessed via paid social media advertisements as equivalent to homepages for these purposes. As consumers who clicked through from a social media advertisement and selected “I’m new to weight loss medication” had not actively sought information about a specific condition, the presentation of branded POM product listings was found to constitute advertising of POMs to the public.

In the Facebook support group ruling, the ASA’s conclusion was more straightforward, as the posts explicitly named weight loss drugs including Wegovy, which was sufficient to constitute the promotion of POMs to the public.

Time Limited Promotions 

The ASA found that Juniper’s Black Friday promotions on Instagram were socially irresponsible. The advertisements used quotes such as “Run, don’t walk” and presented the discounts on weight loss medication as limited‑time offers without specifying an end date.

Referring to guidance issued by the Proprietary Association of Great Britain (PAGB), the ASA noted that promotional offers for OTC medicines should run for a “reasonable length” of time. Short term promotions risk encouraging impulsive decisions, which may lead consumers to buy medicines that they do not need. 

Although no specific guidance was given as to what would constitute a “reasonable length” of time for a promotion, the ASA noted that the promotions in this case ran for 11 days. However, it highlighted that compliance did not depend solely on the duration of the promotion, but also on consumer perception. While it is common for retailers to run Black Friday promotions over several days, the reference to a specific “Black Friday” day, combined with the absence of any stated end date, gave the impression of a strictly time‑limited offer that was likely to end on Black Friday itself, or shortly thereafter. In the absence of a clear timeframe, the ASA considered that consumers, including those considering a medicated weight loss programme for the first time, would feel pressured to make a rushed decision.

Juniper argued that consumers were required to complete an eligibility assessment and consult with a prescriber before any medication was supplied. However, the ASA took the view that, by that stage, the consumer had already made a transactional decision to purchase. The MHRA also expressed concern that the use of urgency messaging did not support the rational use of medication.

Harmful Gender Stereotypes and Social Responsibility

The ASA decided that the influencer advertisement, featuring scenes of a new mother with her newborn baby, followed by scenes showing the baby at a slightly later stage and the mother discussing her “medicated weightloss journey”, was irresponsible and furthered a harmful gender stereotype, in breach of the CAP Code.

The ASA interpreted the caption, “I probably needed a hug, but I decided to start a medicated weight loss journey with Juniper instead”, as presenting weight loss as an alternative to seeking emotional support after childbirth. It considered that this approach would exploit insecurities that new mothers were particularly likely to experience. The MHRA also raised concerns regarding the rational use of medication, given the specific safety considerations applicable to new mothers.

Covert Marketing in Facebook Groups

The ASA concluded that posts made by overseas marketing professionals in Facebook weight loss support groups constituted marketing communications within the remit of the CAP Code. Although the individuals had been asked to post authentic comments about Juniper, they themselves were not users of Juniper’s services. Instead, they were contracted and paid by Juniper on an hourly basis.

The posts were published from Facebook accounts that did not appear to be affiliated with Juniper and promoted Juniper’s services, including references to pricing and the use of discount codes. One post explicitly presented the author as a first‑time customer. However, the posts did not include any advertising labels or other clear indicators of commercial intent. Content of this nature is required to be clearly and prominently identified as advertising, for example through the use of labels such as “#ad”.

The ASA therefore concluded that the posts were not obviously identifiable as marketing communications and breached the CAP Code rules on the recognition of advertising.

Key Takeaways

Website Structure

The ASA will look beyond the immediate advertisement landing page. Filtering pages will not protect advertisers from liability where subsequent pages prominently reference named POMs. Businesses offering POM‑based services should therefore ensure that landing pages accessed via paid social media advertisements comply with the same standards as a website homepage under the MHRA’s Blue Guide.

Limited Time Offers

The ASA accepts that promotional pricing for OTC medicated weight loss programmes is not inherently irresponsible. However, time-sensitive messaging, particularly where no clear promotional timeframe is stated, is likely to breach the CAP Code rules on social responsibility. Promotions should run for a reasonable duration, and advertisements should not pressure consumers into making rushed decisions about medication.

Influencer and Affiliate Content

Advertisers remain responsible for content posted by paid influencers, affiliates and contracted marketing professionals, even where those individuals retain editorial control. Such content must be clearly identifiable as advertising and must not reference named POMs.

Covert Marketing

Paying individuals to post promotional content in online communities without clear identifiers, such as “#ad”, breaches the CAP Code. Businesses should ensure that all third parties engaged to promote their services clearly disclose the commercial nature of their posts.

Co‑authored by Arianne Puttock, Trainee Solicitor