The Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) has banned another promotional post from Huel, marking the third reprimand in two months.
- Huel’s Instagram post made unverified claims about its product’s health benefits and cost-effectiveness compared to fresh produce.
- The post featured Julian Hearn’s claims about the affordability and nutritional equivalency of Huel’s product to greens.
- The ASA found all three claims unsubstantiated and ruled the ad should not reappear.
- This follows a previous ruling involving an undisclosed investor endorsement from Steven Bartlett.
The Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) has once again taken action against Huel, banning a promotional Instagram post due to misleading claims. This development marks the third time in two months that the agency has reprimanded the company. The regulator criticised the post for making unverified statements regarding the product’s health benefits and its cost in comparison to fruits and vegetables.
Julian Hearn, the company’s founder, was featured in the post, asserting: “You’ve been told your whole life to eat greens and a lot of people can’t get that amount of greens into their diet … we’ve taken a very broad range of greens, so you get a product which is equally good, or in my eyes better, but you get it substantially cheaper.” The caption went further to describe Huel’s Daily Greens as “packed with […] gut-friendly probiotics” and an “excellent source of biotin and collagen to support smooth, healthy skin.”
The ASA took issue with this portrayal, particularly with the comparison between Huel’s product and “greens” and the assertion that it was “substantially cheaper” without adequate proof. Huel admitted an editing error had shortened the post, making it appear as though it was comparing the product to fresh vegetables rather than “market-leading daily greens products,” an assertion they claim was backed with evidence, albeit not presented in the post.
Even though Huel stood by its claims regarding essential nutrients, it acknowledged that its general statement of being “gut-friendly” lacked substantial backing. Consequently, the ASA upheld all objections against the company, decreeing that the ad must not appear in its current form.
This ruling is part of a series of challenges faced by Huel concerning its advertising practices. Notably, in August, the ASA ruled against a previous Huel ad featuring an endorsement from Bartlett, which failed to disclose his role as an investor and director. Furthermore, another firm associated with Bartlett, Zoe Health, encountered similar censure for an undisclosed conflict of interest in their advertisements.
These repetitive regulatory challenges underscore the importance of transparency and accuracy in advertising practices for Huel.
