ASA rulings this month: every advert banned in the UK and why

Last verified 2 September 2026. This round-up covers every formal ASA ruling published in the five Wednesday batches from 5 August to 2 September 2026 that went against the advertiser, grouped by theme, with the rule cited and the lesson. We refresh it monthly.

The month’s headline is a gambling campaign that drew 125 complaints and lost on every ad, but the pattern underneath is more useful: the Advertising Standards Authority spent August on reference prices, prescription weight-loss ads, AI apps that trade on insecurity, and the first wave of cases under the online HFSS rules. Fifteen advertisers were told their ads must not appear again. Four were cleared, and those decisions are just as instructive.

How to read ASA rulings

Every ruling on the ASA rulings hub names the advertiser, the medium, the complaint, the CAP Code rule (non-broadcast) or BCAP Code rule (TV and radio) engaged, and an outcome: upheld, upheld in part, or not upheld. “Banned” is trade-press shorthand. What the ASA actually says is that the ad “must not appear again in the form complained of”.

CAP Code section 3 is misleading advertising, 4 is harm and offence, 8 is sales promotions, 12 is medicines and health, 15 is food and 16 is gambling. Rule 1.3, social responsibility, did a lot of work this month.

Misleading pricing and promotions

Sports Direct (Frasers Group), 2 September, website

A product page for a Puma women’s baselayer top showed “from £17.00” against a struck-through “RRP £45.00” and the line “UP TO 50% OFF”. Which? complained that the RRP was not a price at which the product was generally sold. Sports Direct produced manufacturer confirmation and a screenshot of the Puma site, but the ASA found the top sold for £17 to £23 at other major retailers and upheld the complaint under CAP Code rules 3.1, 3.17 and 3.39. Lesson: an RRP is only a valid reference price if the market actually charges it.

Nectar Sleep, 12 August, website

The homepage promised “Save up to 65%” with small print explaining the saving was against “Similar Brands Avg Prices”. Simba Sleep complained. The ASA ruled that consumers would read the claim as a discount on Nectar’s own prices, and that averaging three competitors’ prices and then averaging savings across the range did not give shoppers a genuine reference price. Upheld under rules 3.1, 3.7 and 3.22. Lesson: a competitor comparison belongs in the headline, not the footnote, and it has to point to real prices.

Antler (ATR Brands), 2 September, email and website

Emails on 29 March and 3 April promoted the code SPRING20 as “20% Off Sitewide” and “20% off everything”. Three shoppers could not apply it to sale items. Antler argued sale stock was already discounted by more than 20%, but the ASA held that “everything” means everything. Upheld under 3.1 and 3.3. Lesson: if there are exclusions, do not write “sitewide”.

Boots, 19 August, national newspaper

A front-page promotion in The Mail on Sunday on 22 March offered a “FREE No7 face lotion” for one day only. One reader found the store out of stock. Boots said it had forecast demand from a previous six-day promotion and held more stock than was redeemed overall. The ASA found a one-day offer concentrates demand differently, and that Boots had no system for recording failed redemptions. Upheld under sales promotion rules 8.1, 8.2, 8.9, 8.10, 8.14, 8.17 and 8.17.8, with Associated Newspapers named alongside Boots. Lesson: “subject to availability” does not excuse unnecessary disappointment.

HFSS: the online rules bite, and the brand exemption holds

Since 5 January 2026, CAP Code rule 15.19 prohibits paid-for online ads for identifiable “less healthy” food and drink products. The campaign group Bite Back has been testing its edges with a stream of complaints, and this month the ASA drew the line in both directions.

YO! Sushi, 12 August, paid Instagram

An animated Easter post carried the YO! and KitKat logos with the line “Made with KITKAT Cream Puff”. YO! said it was a brand collaboration ad. The ASA said the copy identified a specific product, a chocolate cream puff in the desserts category, and upheld the complaint under 15.19. Lesson: naming the product in the text kills the brand exemption even if the picture does not.

Costcutter and Mondelez (Cadbury), 5 August, paid Instagram and landing page

A “SPIN to WIN Cadbury Treats” post used a cartoon rabbit and abstract egg shapes. That was cleared as brand advertising. The landing page it linked to showed photographs of Mini Eggs and Creme Eggs with prices, and that part was upheld. Lesson: the click-through counts as part of the ad. Both companies were named.

Cleared: Thorntons, Popeyes and Monty Bojangles

Three HFSS complaints failed. Ferrero’s Thorntons ad (19 August) showed a generic milk chocolate egg with none of the markings of a real product, so it was brand advertising. Popeyes (2 September) survived because its Big Cajun Wrap and Cajun hash browns are not classified as less healthy. Monty Bojangles (2 September) proved it has roughly 26 to 29 employees and qualifies for the SME exemption. Lesson: the rules turn on identifiable products and company size, not on whether the food looks indulgent.

Gambling

Midnite (Dribble Media), 12 August, TV, VOD and radio

Two TV spots, two VOD versions and a radio ad that ran in April and May followed people through a chain of technology failures, veins pulsing on their foreheads, before the line “We can’t fix the rest, but our betting app is actually pretty good.” 125 people complained. Midnite and Clearcast argued the ads were about app reliability. The ASA found the mounting frustration, and the app arriving as the one thing that works, implied gambling offered relief from stress. Upheld under BCAP rules 17.3.1 and 17.3.2 and CAP rules 16.3.1 and 16.3.3. Lesson: if the story positions the bet as the escape, the disclaimer will not save it. This is Midnite’s fourth upheld ruling since December 2021.

Health claims, weight loss and prescription medicines

SheMed, 2 September, paid Reddit

A testimonial-style ad for a women’s medical weight-loss service described someone who “wasn’t obese on paper” but felt “soft, tired” and preoccupied with food. The landing page showed branded Wegovy and Mounjaro pens. The ASA found the ad promoted prescription-only medicines to the public and pitched medical weight loss to people below the licensed eligibility thresholds, exploiting body insecurity. Upheld under rules 1.3, 12.11 and 12.12. Lesson: the ASA reads the landing page, and “skinny fat” is not a clinical indication.

Numan (Vir Health), 26 August, paid Facebook

Two ads for testosterone testing claimed “40% of men with obesity have low testosterone” and “95% of men with low testosterone are undiagnosed”. The 40% figure came from a study of 489 non-diabetic obese men aged over 45. The 95% figure counted men with symptoms, not confirmed cases. Upheld under 3.1, 3.7 and 12.1. Lesson: a statistic lifted from a narrow study cannot be presented as a population fact.

BioID Health (BioIdentical Hormone Therapy), 26 August, paid Facebook

“Your GP Says You’re Normal. We Say You Deserve Better.” The ads implied private hormone testing was more effective than NHS assessment. The company admitted it did not have robust evidence for the comparison and that the ads could undermine confidence in primary care. Upheld under 1.3, 3.1, 3.7 and 12.1. Lesson: positioning a private service against GPs is a comparative claim, and it needs comparative evidence.

Kind Patches, 2 September, paid Instagram

A woman secretly sticks a “dopamine patch” on her boyfriend’s arm at a drive-through; the caption promised the patches “increase dopamine and serotonin levels”. The ASA found no evidence for the health claims and held that applying a supplement to someone without consent condoned anti-social behaviour. Upheld under 1.3, 3.1, 3.7 and 4.4. Lesson: a joke about dosing someone is still a depiction of dosing someone.

Body image and gender stereotypes

Maxxing (Glow Up LLC), 2 September, paid Meta

Two ads for an AI app that scores your face and promises “NEVER look unattractive again” used before-and-after images with numerical attractiveness ratings. The ASA found the results unsubstantiated, the ads exploitative of young people’s insecurities, and the message that happiness depends on conforming to gender-stereotypical looks harmful. Upheld under 1.3, 1.7, 3.1, 3.7, 3.11 and 4.9; the 1.7 citation means the advertiser did not respond. Lesson: “looksmaxxing” is a category the ASA now has a template for.

Candy AI (EverAI), 12 August, paid Facebook

A video invited users to “Create my AI Girl”, then promised “control her. She will do anything for you. She never ignores and always wants your attention.” One complaint. The ASA ruled the ad presented a partner as desirable because she was controllable and compliant, objectifying women and reinforcing a harmful stereotype. Upheld under 1.3, 4.1 and 4.9. Lesson: the 2019 gender stereotype rule applies to synthetic women too.

Offence and social responsibility

Warner Bros, The Mummy, 5 August, TV, streaming and posters

Thirty people complained about the campaign for Lee Cronin’s The Mummy. The TV and streaming ads were cleared because a post-7.30pm restriction was in place. The posters were not: a realistic depiction of a dead child was unsuitable for untargeted outdoor sites where children would see it. Upheld in part under BCAP 1.2, 4.1, 4.10, 5.1 and 32.3 and CAP 1.3, 4.1 and 4.2. The same day, twenty complaints about Warner’s They Will Kill You posters and TV ad were rejected as stylised action-horror. Lesson: scheduling protects a TV ad; nothing protects a poster.

Jaded London, 5 August, email

A fashion email showed a model beside a scooter holding a slim cigarette. Jaded London argued the cigarette was not the focus. The ASA found the styling glamorised smoking. Upheld under rule 1.3. Lesson: a prop is still a message.

Patterns this month

• One complaint is enough. Ten of the fifteen adverse rulings came from a single complainant, several of them rivals or campaign groups: Which? on Sports Direct, Simba on Nectar, Bite Back on HFSS.
• Paid social is where the trouble is. Nine of the fifteen were paid Meta, Instagram, Facebook or Reddit placements. Only Midnite and Warner Bros involved broadcast.
• The landing page is part of the ad. SheMed and Costcutter both lost on what the click-through showed, not the creative itself.
• Rule 1.3 is the workhorse. Social responsibility was cited in eight rulings, covering smoking, secret dosing, body image, AI girlfriends and gambling.
• Nothing on green claims or influencer disclosure this month. The last green-claims batch was 24 June, when Uniqlo, Adidas and Calvin Klein all lost over unqualified “recycled” claims in paid search.

What has changed recently

The online HFSS restriction in rule 15.19 and the 9pm TV watershed in BCAP 32.21 have been live since 5 January 2026. The first upheld cases arrived on 8 July, against Mars for an M&M’s post whose yellow character identified Peanut M&M’s, and against a Morley’s franchisee for a meal-deal post. Domino’s lost on 22 July after supplying incorrect nutrient data at clearance. Expect Bite Back to keep filing.

What this means for advertisers

• Audit reference prices against what the market charges today, not what the manufacturer prints.
• Write promotion terms as if a competitor will read them. Model one-day demand separately from multi-day demand and log every failed redemption.
• Treat the landing page, the caption and the creative as one ad for HFSS, medicines and comparative claims.
• If your product is a prescription-only medicine, the ad cannot name it, show it or link to a page that does.
• Gambling narratives need a story arc where the bet is not the release valve. Clearcast approval does not bind the ASA.
• Respond to the ASA on time. Non-response is published with the ruling and can be referred to CAP Compliance, whose sanctions include paid-search takedowns and ad alerts to media owners.

FAQs

How many adverts did the ASA ban this month?

Fifteen formal rulings published between 5 August and 2 September 2026 were upheld or upheld in part. Four were not upheld. The ASA also resolves many cases informally, and those do not appear as rulings.

What was the most complained-about ad in August 2026?

Midnite’s “We can’t fix the rest” campaign, with 125 complaints, followed by Warner Bros’ The Mummy posters and TV ad with 30.

Does a Clearcast approval protect a TV ad?

No. Clearcast pre-clears against the BCAP Code but the ASA adjudicates complaints independently. Midnite’s ads were cleared and still lost.

When does the ASA publish rulings?

Every Wednesday. This article is updated after the last Wednesday of each month.

Sources

• ASA rulings, 5 August 2026: Warner Bros (two rulings), Costcutter and Mondelez, Jaded London.
• ASA rulings, 12 August 2026: Dribble Media t/a Midnite, YO! Sushi, Nectar Sleep, EverAI t/a AI Realities.
• ASA rulings, 19 August 2026: The Boots Company, Ferrero t/a Thorntons. 26 August 2026: Vir Health t/a Numan, BioIdentical Hormone Therapy.
• ASA rulings, 2 September 2026: ATR Brands t/a Antler, Frasers Group t/a Sports Direct, Glow Up LLC t/a Maxxing, Kind Patches, SheMed, PLK Chicken t/a Popeyes, The Monty Bojangles Co.
• ASA rulings, 8 and 22 July 2026: Mars Wrigley, S&E1 t/a Morley’s Woking, Domino’s. 24 June 2026: Uniqlo, Adidas, Calvin Klein. ASA and CAP, Sanctions.