Wellness brands under scrutiny: ASA draws a hard line on MHRA-regulated claims

The Advertising Standards Authority has upheld a series of rulings against advertisers for breaching the UK advertising codes by making medicinal and specific health claims for products that are not authorised medicines or medical devices. These latest rulings illustrate the ASA’s increased efforts to protect consumers from misleading health-related advertising, particularly in the digital and paid search/social media environment. If you’re a business that wishes to advertise your health, wellbeing, or beauty-related claims, you must ensure your messaging stays compliant - or risk finding yourself on the wrong side of an ASA ruling.

Key advertisers named in ASA enforcement

On 10 December 2025, the ASA upheld complaints against nine advertisers for unlawful medicinal claims in their paid ads, including:

• JR Biomedical Ltd t/a SELFCHECK – Google Search ads for at-home prostate-specific antigen tests claimed “Simple + reliable” diagnostic accuracy for prostate problems, including prostate cancer.
• Healthbio Ltd - Paid Facebook ads made explicit claims that unregulated supplements were helping alleviate ADHD symptoms (“I have ADHD… It is definitely helping”).
• Oncecare Wellness Pte Ltd – Paid social ads suggested supplements could “Ease the challenges of autism” and learning difficulties, and referred to a study involving 17 children with autism who had taken the supplement.
• Nutrisslim d.o.o t/a Nature’s Finest by Nutrisslim UK - Meta ads and website content for supplements purported to treat “problems with enlarged prostate and frequent urination”.
• Get Dopa Ltd – Paid Facebook advertising claimed supplements were the “perfect gift for anyone with ADHD” and could support “neurodivergent thinkers”.
• TAYHLI Ltd t/a C.A.T. - Google Search ads for a nutrition clinic promoted supplements as “Customized Autism Treatment – Autism Recovery Supplements” based on a “growing body of research” which could “Help You Treat And Manage Your child’s Autism”.
• EllaOla Brands Inc t/a EllaOlla - Paid social ads claimed a supplement could reduce autism traits, including through specific claims such as “Fewer Meltdowns” and “More energy & alertness.”

Compliance failures and regulatory focus

In each case, the ASA concluded that the advertising materially - and misleadingly - implied diagnosis, prevention, treatment, or cure of medical conditions such as prostate issues, neurodevelopmental conditions (like ADHD and autism), and related symptoms, even though the products were not licensed medicines and lacked relevant marketing authorisation from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

Such claims are prohibited under the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) Code, which implements statutory requirements and prohibits unsubstantiated medicinal claims in consumer advertising. For example, under Chapter 2, Part 14 of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (HMR 2012), a person may not publish in Great Britain for a medicinal product unless a UKMA licence has been granted by the MHRA. These principles reflect longstanding ASA and CAP standards on medicinal and medical claims. The rules are designed to safeguard consumers from misleading or potentially harmful health-related advertising, ensuring that only authorised and substantiated claims appear in marketing communications.

Regulatory context: MHRA oversight and criminal offences

While these rulings were determined under the CAP Code and enforced by the ASA, they sit alongside a broader statutory framework overseen by the MHRA.

Under the HMR 2012, it is a criminal offence to advertise an unauthorised medicinal product in Great Britain. In particular, regulation 303 HMR 2012 prohibits the publication of advertisements for medicinal products unless a UK marketing authorisation has been granted. Breach may result in criminal sanctions, including fines and imprisonment, and is enforceable by the MHRA.

In practice, the MHRA will often avoid duplicating the work of self-regulatory bodies such as the ASA, unless there are serious public health concerns or evidence of persistent non-compliance. However, the existence of ASA enforcement does not remove the underlying statutory risk.

In addition, making claims that a product can diagnose, prevent, treat or cure disease may have classification consequences:

• If marketing brings a product within the legal definition of a “medicinal product”, it may not be sold, supplied, or even offered for sale or supply (including via advertising) unless authorised (regulations 46–47 HMR 2012). Breach is a criminal offence.
• If claims bring a product within the definition of a “medical device”, it cannot be supplied or offered for supply in Great Britain unless it lawfully bears the relevant CE or UKCA marking under the Medical Devices Regulations 2002.

Recent and pending legislative changes under the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 also expand the MHRA’s enforcement toolkit, including the introduction of direct criminal enforcement and civil monetary penalties for certain medical device breaches.

Accordingly, non-compliant health advertising may expose advertisers not only to ASA rulings, but also to regulatory investigation and criminal liability under medicines and medical devices law.

Enforcement approach and digital advertising

These rulings form part of a continuing broader ASA strategy of actively monitoring digital advertising, particularly paid ads on platforms such as Google Search and Meta’s social media services, for misleading health claims. The ASA has increasingly leveraged and publicised its use of artificial intelligence-enhanced “Active Ad Monitoring System” to identify non-compliant ads at scale, reflecting regulatory concern about the reach and impact of online health-related marketing that falls outside of traditional broadcast and print scrutiny.

Practical implications for advertisers

The rulings reinforce several key compliance themes for businesses operating in the health, wellness, supplements or diagnostics sectors:

• Medicinal claims - Making medicinal or diagnostic claims can itself trigger classification as a medicinal product or medical device, with the result that the product cannot lawfully be advertised, offered for sale or supplied in Great Britain unless the relevant MHRA authorisation or conformity marking is in place.
• Food supplements and botanical products, even if beneficial for general wellbeing, cannot be marketed with wording or imagery that suggests they can diagnose or treat medical conditions without authorisation. Advertisers of such products must avoid terms and implications that stray into medicinal territory.
• Advertisers should review user-generated content and testimonials to ensure they do not inadvertently imply medicinal benefits that breach the CAP Code - this includes subtle or implied language around health outcomes. Importantly, factual statements in consumer reviews or testimonials must be substantiated like any other advertising claim.
• Get external compliance advice if you’re unsure whether your claims cross the line - proactive review can save you enforcement headaches.

Outlook

Given the ASA’s continued proactive stance and zero tolerance approach to medical claims, and its adoption of effective monitoring tools, advertisers in health-related fields should expect very close scrutiny of their online advertising. Advertisers in these industries should ensure that their advertising communications steer clear of implied medicinal claims where their products are not regulated - if in doubt, don’t publish.

Co-authored by Stuart Helmer, Of Counsel; Mike Walsh, Senior Associate; Bonnie Clemence, Senior Associate; Daniel Amery, Trainee Solicitor