On 15 April 2026, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) published its first rulings under the new restrictions on advertising for less healthy food and drink products (LHF products). The new restrictions came into force on 5 January 2026. These early ASA decisions provide important insight into how the regulator is interpreting the scope of the regime in practice, particularly the concepts of “identifiability” and incidental inclusion.
A recap: the new LFH rules
The new restrictions broadly prohibit advertising for identifiable LHF products from appearing:
- On Ofcom‑regulated TV and on‑demand programme services between 5.30am and 9.00pm; and
- In paid‑for online media at any time.
A product will fall within scope if it:
- is assessed as high in fat, salt or sugar under the Nutrient Profiling Model, and
- falls within one of the categories specified in secondary legislation.
Crucially, the restrictions only apply where the LFH product is “identifiable” – meaning a consumer could reasonably be expected to identify the advert as being for that product.
To learn more about the new rules, read our dedicated article here: Are tighter food advertising rules a threat, or an opportunity, for food and drink brands?
Incidental references: the On the Beach decision
One ASA ruling relates to a pre‑9.00pm TV advert for On the Beach, promoting free airport lounge access with certain holidays. The advert included a brief close‑up of a child taking a chocolate doughnut from a buffet, accompanied by the voice‑over “Fill your boots, son”.
The complaint argued that the advert promoted an identifiable LHF product. The ASA disagreed. While confirming that the LHF rules are not limited to food and drink manufacturers or retailers, the ASA found that viewers would understand the advert as promoting the holiday experience and lounge access, not the doughnut itself. The food shown was part of a generic airport lounge setting and its inclusion was incidental.
This ruling demonstrates that context and overall messaging remain critical. A fleeting appearance of an LHF product will not necessarily bring an advert within scope where consumers would not reasonably identify the advert as being “for” that product.
The Lidl decision
Conversely, the ASA upheld complaints against Lidl for a paid‑for Instagram post by an influencer. The post showed an influencer selecting bakery products including a Pain Suisse, which was classified as an LHF product. Although other items featured (such as a cheese pretzel and almond croissants), the ASA found that the combination of close‑up visuals and commentary meant viewers’ attention was drawn to the Pain Suisse. As a result, Lidl was found to be in breach of the new rules. The presence of other bakery items was incidental, but that did not save the advert where an LFH product itself was clearly identifiable.
The Iceland decision
A further paid‑for online advert targeted at users who had visited the Iceland website but not completed a purchase also breached the rules by displaying identifiable LHF products, reinforcing the strict approach to paid‑for online advertising under the new regime.
What can advertisers take from these first rulings?
These early decisions suggest three key takeaways:
- Identifiability is assessed holistically – the ASA will look at visuals, audio, emphasis and overall impression.
- Incidental inclusion remains permissible, but only where the LHF product is not the focus and would not be perceived as what the advert is “about”.
- Paid‑for online media remains higher risk, particularly where targeting and creative execution draw attention to specific LHF products.
As the ASA continues to build its body of decisions, advertisers, including those outside the food and drink sector, should audit campaigns early and carefully to ensure LHF products are not identifiable, particularly in digital and influencer‑led content.
