Huel, supported by Steven Bartlett, has been reprimanded by the ASA yet again for misleading claims.
- The ASA found an Instagram post from Huel unsubstantiated in claims of health benefits and cost.
- Julian Hearn stated in the ad that Huel rivals greens in quality but is cheaper, which the ASA challenged.
- Huel acknowledged editing errors but defended specific health claims in its product.
- This marks the third such ruling against Huel since August regarding misleading advertising practices.
Huel, the meal supplement startup backed by Steven Bartlett, has faced a third reprimand from the British Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) within just two months. The ASA identified issues with an Instagram advertisement that purported health benefits and competitive pricing of its Daily Greens product. Specifically, the agency found that the claims made about the product’s comparable quality to greens and its cost-effectiveness were not substantiated.
The advertisement featured a statement from Huel’s founder, Julian Hearn, claiming that their product matched or even surpassed the nutritional benefits of greens, while also being considerably less expensive. “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,” Hearn asserted in the post. Additionally, the ad’s caption promised enhanced health benefits, highlighting gut-friendly probiotics and 26 essential vitamins and minerals aimed at reducing tiredness and fatigue.
The ASA reviewed the advertisement and raised concerns about its comparisons, particularly the suggestion that Huel was “substantially cheaper” than conventional produce. Huel explained that an editing error resulted in the omission of the context, which was meant to compare their product to other leading market daily greens rather than fresh vegetables. However, Huel accepted that the vague claim regarding their product’s ‘gut-friendly’ nature was inadequately supported.
Despite providing evidence to support claims of cost-effectiveness against competitors, the ASA ruled that the needed context was not conveyed in Huel’s public communications. Consequently, all the claims examined were upheld against Huel, leading the ASA to mandate the removal of the ad.
The current ruling follows a previous decision in August targeting another Huel advertisement, which was found misleading due to non-disclosure of Steven Bartlett’s role as an investor and director. Bartlett’s involvement had also led to the removal of a comparable ad from another of his backed companies, Zoe Health, for similar reasons.
The ASA’s continuous findings against Huel underline the importance of clear and substantiated advertising claims.
