The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has banned ads for brands Zoe and Huel.
- The decision follows misleading endorsements by entrepreneur Steven Bartlett.
- Bartlett’s roles with the brands were not disclosed, influencing ASA’s ruling.
- Consumers were potentially misled by the lack of transparency in these ads.
- Both companies have acknowledged the ASA’s decision and provided assurances.
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has recently imposed a ban on online advertisements for nutrition brands Zoe and Huel, following endorsements by Steven Bartlett that were deemed misleading. The affected adverts, shared on Facebook, were published between February and March and featured quotes from Bartlett, famed for his role in Dragon’s Den. However, it was not disclosed that Bartlett held financial interests in both companies, acting as an investor for Zoe and a director at Huel.
A specific advertisement for Huel, dated 18 February, showcased its Daily Green drink with a statement from Bartlett proclaiming it as “Huel’s best product.” The promotional material queried consumers with “Ever wondered what Steven Bartlett actually thinks of Huel’s Daily Greens? Well there you have it…” This led to the ASA’s intervention due to the absence of details regarding Bartlett’s directorial position at Huel, which the regulatory body considered essential for consumer understanding and informed decision-making.
In a parallel situation, Zoe’s advert featured Bartlett suggesting, “If you haven’t tried Zoe yet, give it a shot. It might just change your life.” This statement, coupled with Bartlett’s image, neglected to specify his investor status in the company. Zoe has recently partnered with retailers such as M&S and Waitrose, but the ASA ruled the omission of Bartlett’s financial involvement as misleading, as it created a perception of unbiased endorsement.
The ASA articulated that the failure to disclose Bartlett’s commercial ties was likely to skew consumer perception of the products, potentially leading them to believe these endorsements were unbiased. Consequently, the adverts were deemed liable to mislead, prompting an order for their withdrawal. The regulator emphasised the necessity for transparency in advertising, particularly when public figures are involved.
In response to these rulings, representatives from Zoe highlighted their respect for the ASA’s role in ensuring advertising transparency and confirmed their commitment to adhering to the standards set by offering written assurances not to repeat the advertisements in their previous form. They also expressed a desire for further clarity on the guidelines governing such endorsements.
The ASA’s decisive action underscores the importance of transparency in advertising, especially when influencers are involved.
