The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has banned ads for nutrition brands Huel and Zoe due to misleading endorsements by Steven Bartlett.
- Bartlett, known for his role on Dragon’s Den, failed to disclose his financial ties with the brands in the adverts.
- The ads appeared on Facebook in February and March, featuring Bartlett’s endorsements of the brands’ products.
- The ASA determined the ads misled consumers by omitting Bartlett’s roles as a director at Huel and an investor in Zoe.
- Both companies have agreed not to run the advertisements in question again, respecting the ASA’s decision.
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has sanctioned the removal of online advertisements for the nutrition brands, Huel and Zoe. This decision came after it was discovered that the ads featured endorsements by Steven Bartlett, a well-known entrepreneur from Dragon’s Den, without disclosing his financial involvement with both companies. The adverts in question were specifically found on Facebook, surfacing between February and March of this year.
Bartlett’s endorsements included statements praising Huel’s Daily Green drink and encouraging the audience to try Zoe, implying potential life-changing benefits. However, these endorsements omitted critical information regarding Bartlett’s positions with the respective companies. The ASA ruled that Bartlett’s roles as a director at Huel and an investor in Zoe were material facts that consumers needed to know to make informed decisions.
Huel argued that consumers typically understand that celebrity endorsements often involve some form of commercial relationship. However, the ASA countered that the nature of Bartlett’s directorial position was significant enough to potentially mislead consumers. The omission led to the adverts being viewed as not fully transparent, prompting the ASA to classify them as misleading.
Similarly, the ad for Zoe presented Bartlett encouraging viewers to ‘give it a shot,’ without mentioning his investor status. Zoe contended that the common consumer would assume Bartlett’s participation signified a remunerated partnership. Regardless, the ASA concluded that these omissions from the ads could cause consumers to believe the endorsements were unbiased when they were not.
In response to the ASA’s findings, both Huel and Zoe have committed to ceasing the publication of these adverts in their existing forms. A Zoe representative expressed respect for the ASA’s efforts to enhance transparency in advertising and invited further clarification on how such commercial relationships should be disclosed.
The ASA’s decision underscores the necessity for transparency in advertising, particularly when endorsements involve financial interests.
