ASA Monthly Insights October 2025: Four(ish) Rulings You Need To Know About

Our advertising and marketing team read the Advertising Standard Authority's (ASA) rulings every week and each month select the ones we think you need to know about and of course, one for fun.

Consider whether there is an environmental angle of any kind

There have been a few rulings over the last few years where the ASA has ruled that ads which focused on specific activities which benefit the environment exaggerated the impact of those activities in the context of the business as a whole.

When assessing whether or not a claim is misleading the ASA has to assess the ad in the eyes of the average consumer. The average consumer is defined as reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect.

After two and a half years of investigation, this month saw the publication of a ruling against a food standards scheme ad which emphasises that the risk of an implied environmental claim is not going away.

The advertiser had intended to make claims about its own certification scheme. The ASA considered that the notional average consumer might understand "Farmed with care, that's the Red Tractor way [...]", "A label to trust, found on food every day", "This promise is kept by the checks put in place", "When the Red Tractor's there, your food's farmed with care", "[...] from field to store all our standards are met" to refer to standards of animal care and arable farmed products.

However, it ruled that a "significant minority of consumers (sharing the characteristics of the notional average consumer)" would expect that standards would include measures to manage and mitigate environmental risk from farming practices. Following a detailed review of information including from the Environmental Agency the ASA ruled that the advertiser was unable to substantiate this wider claim on environmental impact.

Basing an assessment on a significant minority of consumers (sharing the characteristics of the notional average consumer) is not commonplace in ASA rulings and it's certainly going to be a concept to watch out for in future.

Review the claim in the context of the ad as a whole

Although the advertiser had intended to compare between its own products, a laundry pod TV ad which had scenes of a shopper perusing a large number of "laundry additive" products, being overwhelmed and then presented the advertiser's pod as a solution was ruled to breach the rules on comparative advertising.

On-screen text explained that the comparison was against a specific pod, but the ASA considered that the visual would lead consumers to understand the claims meant the advertised pod was a new, improved alternative compared to using a laundry detergent alongside any laundry additive found in supermarkets.

The ASA considered that the ad made claims regarding the product's efficacy and convenience compared to a laundry detergent in combination with any additive and upheld the competitor's complaint on the basis the claim was not substantiated and did not include information on how to verify the claim.

Financial impact of business coaching services shouldn't be exaggerated

This month's rulings included a batch featuring online personalities and companies who promoted courses that purported to help individuals make money and expand their businesses but were found to misleadingly imply claimed earnings results were typical. Claims which were found to breach the rules included:

• "...client hits £33k month using our proven systems..."
• "Well in truth I've built a $5,5000,000 [sic] business with no money, couldn't use my contacts [...] in 90 days. And I'm telling you, you can do this too..."
• "3 Step Salon Growth System. Increase your profits by 40%"
• "...grow their business overnight 30 to 130 percent, 180 percent with 2 or 3 changes..."
• "all while only working 4 hours a day & making £20-30k a month"

These rulings serve as a reminder that testimonials are not in themselves evidence of claims and objective substantiation still needs to be held. In each of the cases investigated the overall impression was created that following one of their programs would either result in ending up with a similar lifestyle of having a similar amount of money but evidence was not provided to show this was the case.

Be clear on the difference between health conditions and medical conditions

The ASA investigated ads which made claims about the efficacy of belief coding in treating a range of conditions, some of which (depression, substance misuse and infertility problems) are medical conditions for which medical supervision should be sought. For such conditions, advice, diagnosis or treatment must be conducted under the supervision of a suitably qualified medical professional.

Although a medical professional reviewed the practitioners' training materials, the belief coding therapy was not delivered under the supervision of a suitably qualified health professional and so the ad breached the CAP Code for discouraging essential medical treatment.

The ASA also considered whether the claims in relation to anxiety, nicotine addiction, bed wetting, ear pain, back pain and fibromyalgia could be substantiated.

The ASA reviewed a paper authored by the advertiser's CEO and a study paper describing a controlled study. It noted that the paper was not a systematic review or a primary research study and did not cite any clinical trials for belief coding. The study monitored brain activity only while a session was underway and although increased brain activity was recorded, the paper made no reference to medical conditions or treating addiction.

Having determined that the documentation was insufficient to substantiate the claims, the ASA did not go on to comment on the advertiser's note that an external agency had used AI to summarise the paper and generated success rates which were included in the ad but did not feature in the paper.

And finally, one for fun

While health conditions and ailments are not anything to be laughed at, defending claims for a body butter product on the basis that claims applicable to magnesium in oral supplements should logically extend to topical creams containing the same ingredient may cause merriment.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.