The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has prohibited advertisements by two companies, Huel and Zoe, for failing to disclose the financial interests of Steven Bartlett, a well-known entrepreneur.
Steven Bartlett, a prominent figure known for his role on BBC’s Dragons’ Den and as the host of the popular podcast The Diary Of A CEO, featured in adverts endorsing both Huel and Zoe. However, the ASA determined that these ads were misleading, as they did not inform consumers of Bartlett’s financial interests—he is an investor in Zoe and a director at Huel. This omission was deemed significant enough to influence consumer decisions, thus breaching regulations on non-broadcast advertisements.
The ASA found that two adverts for Huel and one for Zoe violated rules by omitting crucial information regarding Bartlett’s ties to the businesses. As a result, these ads are now prohibited from being aired again in their current form. Zoe, which offers health testing and dietary advice services, defended its advert featuring Bartlett. The company argued that consumers would naturally assume a commercial relationship exists when a celebrity endorses a product. However, the ASA countered that Bartlett’s role as an investor was critical information that should have been disclosed to consumers.
Huel, known for its vitamin-enriched food products, faced similar scrutiny. In one banned advert, Bartlett praised Huel’s “daily greens” as the brand’s “best product”. The ASA highlighted that while the marketing was clearly identifiable, it did not adequately convey Bartlett’s vested interest in Huel’s success.
This incident is not the first time Bartlett and Huel have faced criticism over undisclosed ties. Last year, a podcast ad on The Diary Of A CEO was similarly banned after Bartlett failed to reveal his directorship with the company while promoting one of their drinks.
A spokesperson for Zoe expressed disappointment in the ruling, stating that the ASA’s decision could have broader implications for how brands and influencers disclose relationships in their marketing. They called for clearer guidelines to ensure consistent application of the rules. Huel and Bartlett have yet to comment on the matter.
The ASA’s rulings are expected to prompt greater scrutiny of celebrity endorsements, particularly where financial interests are involved.
The ASA’s decision underscores the importance of transparency in advertising, particularly concerning endorsements that involve financial interests. This ruling is likely to lead to more stringent regulations and closer examination of celebrity endorsements in the future.
