Clifford Chance

Sobering conclusion for VK “Dry Jan” ad complaint

The ASA has upheld a complaint against Global Brands Ltd, trading as VK, regarding an Instagram ad that allegedly trivialised "Dry January." The ad, posted in January 2025, featured a 70 cl bottle of VK Blue with text suggesting that participating in "Dry January" could be light-heartedly interrupted by consuming their product, with phrases like "One won’t hurt, right?" and "keep the party going into January." The ASA assessed whether the ad implied that alcohol could overcome boredom, which would breach the CAP Code's rules on socially responsible advertising.

VK argued that the ad used humour to engage those not fully participating in Dry January, rather than targeting vulnerable consumers taking the challenge seriously.  VK also contended that its use of the question "One won't hurt, right?" left it open for consumers to decide for themselves whether or not to drink the alcoholic product.  

However, the ASA found that such question was closely associated with peer pressure and relapse during abstinence and was often used to persuade someone to drink alcohol against their better judgement.  Moreover, the ASA considered that the fundamental purpose of the ad was to tempt consumers taking part in Dry January to drink alcohol in order to “keep the party going” and avoid the boredom they may otherwise experience due to abstinence.  The ad therefore breached the CAP Code.

Key takeaways:

• Alcohol adverts must not imply that drinking can solve boredom or other problems.
• Humour in advertising must still adhere to social responsibility standards.

By Izzy Savage, Associate in the Intellectual Property team in London

Lavazza ad disintegrates by misleading compostability claims

The ASA has upheld a self referenced complaint against Lavazza Coffee for an ad regarding its coffee pods. The ad stated the Lavazza A Modo Mio Eco Caps provided "the coffee shop taste in compostable capsules for your home". The ASA challenged whether the "compostable capsules" claim was misleading, as part of a wider investigation focussing on ads making "compostable claims".

Lavazza argued that "compostable" would be understood by the consumer as meaning a product made with compostable material, rather than the product necessarily being compostable. In this instance, the coffee capsules were certified for industrial composting, but not for home composting.

The ASA disagreed and considered the claim implied that the capsules, which would be used at home, could be composted in a home composter (which was not the case), and would therefore be likely to mislead. The ASA referred to the CAP guidance stating that if the disposal process referred to in an ad is likely to differ from the average consumer's expectation, that claim is likely to need qualification. While Lavazza had the disposal location information on its website, the ASA did not believe this was adequate. The ASA also noted that the ad format had enough space for additional characters to allow Lavazza to correctly inform consumers about the true nature of the product within the ad.

Accordingly, Lavazza was found to be in breach of the CAP Code's rules on misleading advertising and environmental claims, and was instructed to ensure its ads did not mislead, or omit material information about the disposal of compostable products.

Key takeaway:

• All material information, particularly in relation to environmental claims, needs to be included in ads to avoid misleading consumers – it is not enough to have this available to consumers separately.  

By Lauren Royers, Senior Associate in the Intellectual Property team in London.

ASA delivers the bottom line on BBLs

The ASA has upheld complaints against six aesthetic clinics (Beautyjenics Ltd, Bomb Doll Aesthetics, CCskinlondondubai, EME Aesthetics & Beauty Academy Ltd, NKD Medical Ltd t/a Dr Ducu London and Rejuvenate Academy Ltd t/a Rejuvenate Clinics ) for irresponsible advertising of “liquid BBL” (Brazilian Butt Lift) procedures. These rulings form part of a broader ASA initiative targeting misleading and high-pressure marketing in the cosmetics sector.

Each case involved time-limited offers (e.g. Black Friday discounts) that were found to pressure consumers into booking invasive cosmetic procedures. This was in breach of CAP Code rules on responsible advertising of such procedures, which requires ads for cosmetic surgery to present the decision to undertake such procedures as one involving time and thought from consumers. Claims such as “get that perfect peachy look,” “safe and effective,” and “minimal pain” were held by the ASA to trivialise the risks of medical procedures and exploit body image insecurities, particularly among women.

These rulings reinforce that cosmetic procedures must not be marketed using urgency, exaggerated benefits, or misleading safety claims, and must not prey on any consumers insecurities relating to body image and aesthetics.

Key takeaways:

• Time-limited offers and urgency-based language should be avoided in advertisements for medical, cosmetic or aesthetic procedures.
• It is recommended that advertisers ensure all claims concerning safety, results, and pain levels are evidence-based, substantiated and balanced, and that ads for cosmetic procedures include clear risk disclosures and avoid exploiting consumers' insecurities.

By Anna Zakonyi, Trainee in the Intellectual Property team in London.

Call Me (The Nation's Network) Maybe? Not without substantiation, ASA tells Vodafone

The ASA has upheld a complaint against Vodafone concerning a website ad that used the phrase “The Nation’s Network” while clearing a related complaint related to a TV ad. The complaints, brought by rival telecoms company EE, alleged that the phrase constituted an implied comparative superiority claim.

Vodafone defended the slogan as a reference to its heritage as the UK’s first mobile network, established in 1984, and its longstanding service to the nation and presence at important cultural and sporting events. Vodafone argued the claim was not comparative, lacked reference to competitors, and was contextually grounded in its brand history.

The ASA agreed in relation to the TV ad finding that the historical visuals and accompanying text provided sufficient context to frame the claim as "heritage-based" rather than comparative.

However, the webiste ad was held to breach the CAP Code and the ASA concluded that the website’s presentation - featuring claims about reliability, coverage, and service quality - lacked adequate contextual framing; and in this setting, a significant minority of consumers were likely to interpret “The Nation’s Network” as a superiority claim over competitors.

Key takeaway:

• Clear, contextual substantiation is crucial when using potentially comparative language. Advertisers are advised to ensure that claims which could be construed as superiority statements are supported by objective, verifiable comparisons, particularly when competitors are implicitly identifiable.

By Anna Zakonyi, Trainee in the Intellectual Property team in London

Barclay's green claims get the green light

The ASA has rejected a complaint against Barclays Investment Bank  for a magazine ad by Barclays  which complainants claimed misled consumers by omitting information about the bank’s contribution to carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions. The ad, which appeared in UK financial journal, The Economist, featured the headline “POWERING a more sustainable future” and promoted Barclays’ advisory and financing services to clients across the energy value chain.

Barclays responded that the ad was clearly targeted at a financially literate, business-focused audience and promoted specific services offered by its Investment Bank, rather than its retail operations or overall environmental footprint. The ASA agreed, finding that the ad was a business-to-business communication aimed at senior decision-makers in corporate and institutional sectors.

Importantly, the ASA concluded that the environmental claims were qualified and contextualised. Phrases such as “a more sustainable future” and “helping power the transition” were not absolute and were clearly linked to the services being promoted. The ad did not suggest that Barclays had no involvement with high-emitting sectors, nor did it purport to represent the bank’s overall environmental strategy.

Key takeaway:

• Where environmental claims are clearly limited to specific services and audiences, and do not imply broader environmental performance, the omission of wider corporate impact data may not be considered misleading under the CAP Code.

By Anna Zakonyi, Trainee in the Intellectual Property team in London.

Stuart Broad: Too grown-up to be a risk

The ASA has rejected a complaint relating to a post on ex-England cricketer Stuart Broad’s X account promoting gambling company Fitzdares. The post disclosed that Broad had received a £500 monthly free bet pot to raise money for Motor Neurone Disease. A complaint was raised, questioning whether Broad, a prominent sports figure, might strongly appeal to under-18s, potentially breaching the CAP Code on gambling advertisements.

Fitzdares defended the ad, stating it had conducted a thorough risk assessment in line with CAP guidance. Fitzdares argued that Broad, aged 38 and retired since 2023, no longer held a prominent role in cricket. While he had a distinguished career and some media presence, his current involvement was limited to punditry, which Fitzdares argued did not appeal strongly to under-18s. Moreover, his brand partnerships were primarily with adult-oriented sectors such as finance and automotive.

Social media data showed that only a small proportion of Broad’s followers were under 18 and based in the UK—7,500 on Instagram and just 76 on X. He had no presence on platforms popular with younger audiences, such as TikTok or Snapchat, and his YouTube and Facebook accounts were inactive.

With the above in mind, the ASA concluded that Broad was unlikely to have strong appeal to under-18s, either through his current public profile or in the context of the ad. No elements in the ad were found to be directed at or likely to attract under-18s. The complaint was therefore not upheld, and the ad did not breach CAP Code rules related to gambling advertising.

Key takeaways:

• The assessment of "strong appeal" to under-18s is multi-faceted and the ASA considered several factors beyond the individual's prominence, such as current role, media presence, demographics of followers, etc.
• Reviewing a celebrity's or influencer's social media demographic statistics prior to engaging them in ads for restricted products is advisable.

By Alex Song, Trainee in the Intellectual Property team in London.

Introducing… the new UK Consumer Protection Regime under the DMCCA

A new UK consumer protection regime came into force on 6 April 2025 under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA). Replacing the EU-derived Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTR), the DMCCA strengthens protections against unfair commercial practices, with broad implications for advertising and influencer marketing practices.

The DMCCA expands the list of unfair commercial practices to include the submission, commissioning, and publishing of fake or concealed incentivised consumer reviews. Incentivised reviews must now be clearly disclosed, and the practice of 'pressure selling' is more strictly constrained. Misleading practices, such as cherry-picking positive reviews and suppressing negative reviews, are prohibited, and businesses must not publish consumer review information (including aggregated ratings) without taking reasonable and proportionate steps to prevent the inclusion of fake or misleading content. In the context of influencer marketing, the DMCCA mandates that incentivised reviews be clearly labelled and distinguished from organic reviews.

The DMCCA also introduces a ban on 'drip pricing', i.e., the practice of advertising a base price and only revealing additional mandatory fees later in the transaction. All unavoidable charges must be disclosed upfront in any invitation to purchase. More broadly, all pricing information must be provided clearly and in a timely manner.

For publishers and platforms, these changes introduce a positive compliance obligation: they must implement policies, conduct risk assessments, and deploy detection and enforcement mechanisms. Even passive inaction such as failing to remove known fake reviews may constitute a breach.

Key takeaways:

• Publishers and platforms should review and update their review management, influencer engagement, and disclosure practices to satisfy the DMCCA’s positive compliance obligations.
• Non-compliance may lead to CMA enforcement, including fines of up to £300,000 or 10% of global annual turnover (whichever is greater).
• It is recommended that advertisers monitor the CMA’s upcoming summer consultation and autumn guidance on drip pricing and stay alert to developments from regulators (e.g. the ASA) to clarify acceptable practices.

By Anna Zakonyi, Trainee in the Intellectual Property team in London.

The CAP and BCAP codes are amended to keep in step with the new DMCCA

With the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA) coming into force, certain amendments have been implemented to the CAP and BCAP's advertising codes to ensure alignment with related unfair commercial practices provisions. The essence of the codes remains the same and the changes aim to tighten up or clarify wording, definitions and structure of the existing code provisions. The changes impact rules in relation to marketing communications not omitting material information, not containing fake consumer reviews and the likelihood of a marketing communication causing a consumer to take a 'transaction decision' (now broadened in scope) they would otherwise not have taken.

Key takeaways:

• The amendments to the advertising codes came into force on 7 April 2025 and will be reviewed after 12 months to ensure the changes are effective.
• It is recommended that advertisers familiarise themselves with the amended advertising codes and apply these to any ads going forwards.

By Laura Hartley, Associate in the Intellectual Property team in London.

Licence to thrill (responsibly): The UK’s new Gambling Regulations

The UK’s gambling regulatory framework is undergoing a major transformation in 2025, following the Government’s 2023 White Paper, 'High Stakes: Gambling Reform for the Digital Age'. These reforms signal a shift from a reactive, industry-led model to a more proactive, interventionist approach by UK regulators.

Statutory Gambling Levy

• From 6 April 2025, all UK-licensed gambling operators must pay a statutory levy, replacing the previous voluntary funding model.
• Administered by the UK Gambling Commission, the levies will be distributed into sustainable, ring-fenced funding streams for research, education, and treatment related to gambling harms.
• First payments of the levy are due by 1 October 2025.

Online Slots Stake Limits

• New stake limits for online slots games take effect in two phases: from 9 April 2025, a £5 per spin cap applies to all adults; from 21 May, a lower £2 limit applies to players aged 18–24.
• These age-based protections reflect evidence of increased vulnerability among younger adults and build on earlier restrictions on autoplay and game speed.

Consumer Protection Measures                                        

• A suite of new rules aims to enhance player safety and autonomy. These include financial vulnerability checks, a pilot for frictionless risk assessments, and prompts for players to set and review deposit limits.
• Players will also benefit from improved transparency tools, such as clearer transaction histories and spending summaries.
• These measures are being rolled out throughout 2025 using a phased, data-driven approach.

Key takeaway:

• The 2025 reforms mark a decisive evolution in UK gambling regulation. Operators are advised to act swiftly to align systems, policies, and contracts with the new requirements, as the UK positions itself as a global leader in responsible gambling.

Read our more detailed summary of upcoming regulatory changes in the UK gambling sector: -  UK Gambling Regulations in 2025: the UK Government 'doubles-down' on consumer protection

By Alex Walker, Partner in the Intellectual Property team in London.

New statutory instrument proposed to clarify restrictions on "less healthy" food and drinks coming soon

New restrictions on advertising "less healthy" food and drinks products (HFSS) that would see HFSS ads banned on TV and on-demand services between 5:30pm and 9:00pm were due to come into force in October 2025 but have now been pushed back. Following concerns raised by industry stakeholders on how these restrictions would be implemented, the UK Government intends to lay a clarificatory statutory instrument which will expressly state that brand advertising is out of scope of the restrictions, provided the ads in question do not identify a specific HFSS product.

To allow time to consult on the draft instrument, the new restrictions will not formally come into force until 5 January 2026. However, industry stakeholders have made a public commitment to comply with the proposed restrictions as though they would still come into force from 1 October 2025. This means that, from 1 October 2025, the UK Government will expect ads for specific identifiable less healthy products not to be shown on TV between 5:30am and 9pm or at any time online, and there will be legal clarification on ‘brand advertising’ before the restrictions come into force legally on 5 January 2026, subject to Parliamentary approval.

In light of the UK Government's announcement, the ASA has paused its second consultation on how these restrictions will be implemented. The ASA has stated that it will not process or investigate complaints in relation to ads that may or may not run contrary to restrictions on less healthy food drink products before 5 January 2026 as it is unable to enforce rules until the law is in place.

Key takeaway:

• Brands involved in advertising "less healthy" foods should review their product offerings to assess whether their products will be impacted by the new restrictions and plan their advertising strategy accordingly with the proposed timelines.

By Laura Hartley, Associate in the Intellectual Property team in London.

Recent adverts that have got us talking

• Tesco launch a 90s club night to celebrate 30 years of Clubcard
• Stokke promoted dads as dads, not babysitters ahead of Father's Day
• McDonald's promote their classics with 'ancient' mosaic in Rome
• Tinder India will bin your emotional baggage

Some of our recent publications

• The future of ads regulation in the EU: As regulators look beyond the ePrivacy Regulation, the EU has an opportunity to focus on simplification and growth, leveraging existing frameworks to provide robust protections.
• The Media Act 2024 - the Government's Answer to Changing Technology and Consumer Habits: As public service broadcasters and radio face changing technology and evolving consumer habits, the Media Act 2024 aims to ensure an even playing field but also brings increased regulation to video-on-demand services. In this article we look at the key aspects of the legislation and Ofcom's road to implementation.
• Aldi's permission to appeal denied in Thatchers' case: The Supreme Court has denied Aldi permission to appeal the Court of Appeal's decision in the Thatchers vs Aldi trade mark dispute, leaving the lower court's ruling intact. 
• Video Games vs. Cheating: "game over" for copyright holders of a computer program when the code is not altered: In the Sony v. Datel Judgment (C‑159/23), the CJEU clarified the copyright protection of computer programs and concluded that the content of variables used to run a computer program cannot be protected under copyright law.