Advertising in the UK is governed by four key areas of law and regulation, including both self-regulatory and statutory systems:

(i) The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA): A self-regulatory system governs advertising and marketing content (including TV, radio, social media posts, website content, and out of home ads). It comprises of three bodies: the ASA, the Advertising Standards Board of Finance (ASBOF) and the Committees of Advertising Practice (CAP). The ASA is the main regulator, but some types of content fall outside its remit (e.g. claims on packaging, press releases); excluded material is regulated under (ii) to (v). Competitors, consumers and groups “with an obvious interest” (e.g. charities) are all able to bring claims against advertisers. While the ASA cannot issue fines, advertisers unwilling to follow ASA rules may be referred to Trading Standards, who act as a ‘legal backstop’.

(ii) Consumer protection legislation: the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCC) prohibits unfair marketing to consumers, including misleading or aggressive marketing. The DMCC was passed in May 2024 and will replace the previous Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs) when it comes into force;

(iii) Intellectual property legislation: copyright and trade mark laws control creative treatments and use of third party trade marks in comparative advertising;

(iv) Sector-specific laws and codes: in additional to specific laws, advertising for particular goods or services, such as financial services, gambling, tobacco and alcohol, often have their own sector-specific regulators or trade bodies. For example, the Portman Group issues a Code of Practice for the alcohol sector;

(v) Additional media regulation and data privacy laws, such as the Communications Act 2003, Online Safety Act 2023, the Data Protection Act 2018 and the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003, also include relevant provisions.

The ASA publishes its adjudications on a weekly basis, many of which are reported in the press. While the ASA cannot levy fines, it can publish its rulings on its website (which is publicly accessible) and it generates negative publicity by notifying the press. It can also require that ads are taken down or removed from circulation following an ‘upheld’ ruling. There are also several practical sanctions it can impose on repeat offenders or where cases are particularly serious, e.g. requiring advertising to be pre-cleared, or referring the complaints/issue to one of the statutory regulators, such as the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) or Trading Standards for court action.

The CMA is another key regulator. Under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, the CMA has strong new fining and enforcement powers for breaches of consumer law, including misleading claims. Its remit is broader than the ASA’s remit as it includes packaging, claims in press releases and other media that might fall outside the ASA’s remit.  The CMA can initiate and conduct investigations (compelling disclosure of information and materials), and under its new powers it will be able to impose very large financial penalties of up to 10% of the advertiser’s annual global turnover, without needing to ask the courts to do so.

While the rules are very similar, covering key issues such as misleading advertising, promotional marketing, social responsibility, advertising to children, gambling and lotteries, the environment, and health claims, there are two UK Advertising Codes:

(i) The UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising and Direct & Promotional Marketing (CAP Code) applies to non-broadcast advertisements, sales promotions and direct marketing communications, i.e. websites, out of home, print, social media, cinema; and

(ii) The UK Code of Broadcast Advertising (BCAP Code) applies to all advertisements on television and radio, and programme sponsorship credits (idents).

The codes differ in subtle ways, including the rules around featuring living individuals without their consent.

The BCAP Code has additional rules around scheduling (i.e. age-restricted products and placement rules), premium rate telephone serves, sexual entertainment and pornography, dating, and categories of radio ads requiring central copy clearance.

All ads for television (and some on video-on-demand platforms) must be pre-approved by Clearcast. Clearcast approves both scripts and final cuts of ads, checking that they are complaint with the BCAP Code. While Clearcast’s approval does not prevent the ASA from investigating a complaint or influence the outcome of any ruling, the ASA will consult with Clearcast to understand the reasoning for approval.

RadioCentre and the Cinema Advertising Association operate a similar system for radio and cinema advertising, respectively.

Third party permission may also be required if the advertiser intends to feature identifiable individuals, private residences, coins and postage stamps and so on.

The ASA states that ads must be “legal, decent, honest and truthful”, they must not be materially misleading, and they must be socially responsible (see Section 3 of the CAP and BCAP Codes).

Claims must be true and substantiated (i.e. the advertiser must hold evidence to show the claims are true). Ads must state significant limitations and qualifications. They will be found to be misleading if material information is omitted or presented an unclear or ambiguous manner. “Material information” includes the main characteristics of the product, the price, delivery costs, the identity of the advertiser or trader, and cancellation rights.

Any disclaimers can clarify the main claim, but cannot contradict it, and must be expressed clearly and legibly.

If the ASA receives a complaint, or decides to investigate an issue off its own bat, it will consider the ad as a whole and focus on the likely effect on the average consumer, rather than considering the advertiser’s intention. Following the submission of a complaint, the ASA will give the advertiser an opportunity to present a defence in writing before preparing a draft recommendation. The ASA Council then reviews the draft recommendation and publishes its final adjudication, which states whether the complaint is upheld or not upheld. Sometimes the ASA can be persuaded to resolve the matter informally, which avoids the matter ending in a formal/published ruling.

If the complaint is upheld, the advertiser should withdraw the ad from circulation by the time the ruling is published.

If the advertiser does not cooperate/comply by withdrawing an ad that breaches consumer laws (in addition to the CAP/BCAP Codes), the ASA has a range of options, including to refer the matter to other regulators, such as Trading Standards or the CMA.

Marketers should take account of the prevailing standards in society and the context in which a marketing communication is likely to appear to minimise the risk of causing harm or serious or widespread offence. The CAP and BCAP Codes make clear that ads must not cause harm or serious or widespread offence, especially to those under the age of 18; advertisers should consider “generally accepted standards” to minimise the risk of causing harm, distress, or serious or widespread offence (Section 4 of the CAP Code and BCAP Code):

• Marketing communications must not cause fear or distress without justifiable reason; if it can be justified, the fear or distress should not be excessive.
• Marketers must not use a shocking claim or image merely to attract attention.
• Marketing communications must not include gender stereotypes that are likely to cause harm, or serious or widespread offence. Ads should also not be offensive on grounds of “protected characteristics” under the UK’s Equality Act, such as sex, race or sexual orientation, among others.

Compliance will be judged on the context, medium, audience, product and prevailing standards.

The ASA, Trading Standards and CMA have all issued guidance on such claims. Overall, the guidance makes clear that price claims must relate to the product featured in the ad and must not mislead by omission, distortion, or undue emphasis. Claims that a customer can make a saving must not mislead by falsely claiming a price advantage, and “up to” and “from” claims must not exaggerate potential savings. Marketers must not artificially inflate prices to make saving claims and encourage consumers to purchase.

In relation to “was £X, now £X” claims, the higher prices must represent a genuine, usual selling price; the ASA will consider the pricing history (the recency and duration of the higher price), sales data, and distribution channels when assessing this.

Generally, the higher reference price must be charged for a longer period than the discounted/promotional price. Alternating between a higher and lower price (e.g. selling the item for one month at the higher price, one month at the lower price, one month at the higher price, one month at the lower price) is likely to be misleading if a “was/now” claim is made.

The CMA has investigated and obtained undertakings from traders engaging in potentially misleading pricing practices, e.g. use of misleading “was £x, now £y” prices, drip pricing, or countdown clocks that reset following the ‘end’ of the offer. In an investigation into online mattress retailers that often use discount claims, the CMA has gone a step further than the ASA by suggesting that the volume of products sold at the higher price should be significant, so that for every two items sold at the lower price, at least one should have been sold at the higher price. So, if an advertiser claims “Was £500, now £250” in relation to a particular range of mattresses, and it sold 1000 mattresses at the higher price of £500, it can sell up to 2000 further mattresses at the discounted price, after which time it can continue to offer them at the discounted price but should cease referring to the previous price.

The regulation of misleading environmental claims has been a key focus of both the ASA and CMA in recent years.

Section 9 of the BCAP Code and section 11 of the CAP Code apply specifically to environmental claims by advertisers in addition to the general rules regarding misleading advertising.  The ASA and CMA have also provided extensive guidance on environmental claims.

Environmental claims should be clear and must be supported by a high degree of substantiation, taking the whole lifecycle of a product into consideration. The meaning of all terms used should be clear to consumers and marketing communications should not present their claims as universally accepted if there is a significant division of informed or scientific opinion. Absolute terms, such as “eco-friendly” and “good for the planet” are considered absolute claims which would be nearly impossible to prove, so are very unlikely to be acceptable.

Several sectors are tightly restricted, including medicine and pharmaceuticals, alcohol, gambling, automotives, and any advertising targeting children.

These are some of the key categories are illegal to advertise altogether:

• Illegal products;
• tobacco products;
• guns and offensive weapons;
• prostitution services; and
• pyramid selling schemes.

In addition, product placement is prohibited in news programmes, children’s programmes, religious programmes, and current affairs programmes. Lawful product placement must be marked by the “P” logo, which must feature for three seconds at the start and end of programmes and after any ad breaks.

Laws and advertising standards stipulate that marketing either featuring or directly targeting children must not feature anything that may cause physical, mental or moral harm.

As well as the sector-specific rules around gaming, alcohol and unhealthy food, advertising targeting children cannot include sexualised imagery, promotions, age restricted products and gambling, unfair pressure or encouragement of ‘pester power’, or promotions.

While it is not an explicit requirement under the CAP and BCAP Codes, many outdoor media owners apply a ‘100 metre rule’, meaning certain ads, for example those that are sexually suggestive, or those that promote HFSS products or age-restricted products such, must not appear within 100 metres of a school boundary.

The promotion of foods high in fat, salt and sugar (HFSS) is governed by specific rules in the CAP and BCAP Codes.

Ads for HFSS products are subject to media placement restrictions; in particular, ads for HFSS products are not permitted to feature in media directed at under-16s, or where under-16s make up more than 25% of the audience. There are also rules about where HFSS products can be displayed in ‘bricks and mortar’ stores and in online retail (e.g. not on aisles or by tills, or on homepages).

In 2025, new laws will be implemented under the Communications Act 2003, as introduced via the Health and Care Act 2022. As of 1 October 2025, ads for specific HFSS products are expected to be banned on television and in paid-for online advertising. In addition, multibuy promotions, such as “3 for 2” offers, will be prohibited.

Both the ASA and CMA expect influencers to clearly label their content as ads, and actively enforce this rule. This applies to all types of marketing content, including gifted products and brand collaborations. A ‘clear’ label is one that a consumer will understand – ideally, the influencer will use a variation of ‘#ad’, ‘#advert’, or ‘#advertisement’. The use of ‘gifted’, ‘affiliate’, ‘collab’, or simply thanking or tagging the brand, is not deemed sufficient.

The ASA has published guidance addressed to influencers themselves, setting out the ‘unfair commercial practices’ they must avoid:

• failing to make it clear that a trader has paid for the promotion;
• falsely claiming or implying that they are a consumer;
• failing to identify the commercial intent behind a social media post; and
• omitting material information, such as ambassador role status.

These rules apply if an influencer receives payment or any other incentive (money, free products, or other benefits), or if they are directly connected to a brand (e.g. they are an owner, employee, shareholder, or has another personal or commercial interest).

The ASA has upheld complaints against individuals failing to disclose their connection with a brand, including influencer Grace Beverley (in relation to her brand TALA) and Steven Bartlett (who promoted Huel, a company he is a director of).

While influencers must comply with the applicable laws and regulations, such as clearly labelling any ad, they do not currently require a licence or official permission.

The Government Communication Service’s guidelines for influencer marketing (November 2023) define influencer marketing as “when brands partner with individuals who have an engaged online following”. This range of individuals is broad, including social media influencers, experts, celebrities, influencers and “everyone in between”.

‘Normal’ people are now able to garner a significant following overnight on platforms like TikTok and Instagram. For example, law graduate Sabrina Bahsoon, or “Tube Girl”, partnered with brands such as MAC and Victoria Secret and attended Paris Fashion Week after going viral in 2023.

At present, this opportunity remains possible for “everyone in between��� without the need to obtain a permit.

Advertisements must not infringe a third party’s IP rights – plagiarising the creative content of other ads, using trade marks or copyrighted material without permission from the IP owner, and implying another brand’s endorsement or affiliation without prior authorisation, is prohibited. Trade marks or copyrighted material may include music, artworks, and the logos of other brands (even if featuring in the background of a shot, on clothing, or on a phone or computer screen)

In particular, advertisers should be cautious when developing a comparative ad. Any claims must be substantiated and a competitor’s trade mark may only be used to legitimately compare the goods or services.

Comparative advertising (both business-to-business and business-to-consumer) is permitted in the UK, subject to the conditions set out in the Business Protection from Misleading Marketing Regulations 2008. Advertisers must ensure:

• the comparisons are not misleading;
• they only compare products which are intended for the same purpose;
• they objectively compare one or more features of the goods or services which are material and verifiable (e.g. price);
• they do not discredit or take unfair advantage of the trademarks, trade names, other distinguishing marks, goods, services, or circumstances of the competitor;
• they do not take unfair advantage of the designation of origin of the competitor; and
• the ad does not create confusion between the goods or services, trademarks or names of the advertiser and competitor.

When creating a comparative ad, advertisers should:

• check the accuracy of the data and statistics used;
• make it clear as to who the other advertiser is; and
• avoid ‘puffery’ which might be perceived as taking advantage of a competitor’s reputation.

A competitor’s trade mark can be used, but only to legitimately compare the two goods or services. Use beyond this can result in a claim for trade mark infringement, passing off, copyright infringement, trade libel, or defamation.

While individuals do not have ‘image rights’ under the laws of England and Wales, they may be able to bring a claim for ‘passing off’ or false endorsement if their name or image is used to promote goods or services without their permission.

If an individual’s personal data is used, they may be able to claim misuse of their personal data.

While the CAP and BCAP Code has long warned against causing harm and offence in Section 4 (harm and offence), the ASA has commissioned reports into specific areas of concern over recent years.

Since 2019 there have been rules which prohibit the inclusion of gender stereotypes that are likely to cause harm or serious or widespread offence.

In 2022, the ASA published a report on harmful racial and ethnic stereotypes. While further changes to Section 4 have yet not been made, guidance on avoiding such stereotypes was published in 2023.

While the UK does not currently have any specific rules relating to the use of AI in advertising, the government is looking to implement legislation to regulate AI. Areas of concern range from IP rights to creator remuneration to potential biases.

In August 2023, the ASA issued guidance stating that the CAP Code will apply regardless of how an ad is created. However, use of generative AI may lead to copyright issues – both in relation to the finished product, and the information and works used to train the AI. Even if an ad is generated entirely by AI, the onus is on the advertiser to ensure that the ad is (i) compliant with the Code, and (ii) non-infringing of any third-party IP. Advertisers should also ensure that AI doesn’t create images that mislead with regards to the efficacy of a product.

In November 2023, the ASA launched a five year strategy which outlined its intention to use AI to regulate ads going forward. They anticipate that the Active Ad Monitoring system will enable them to process up to 10 million ads a year, which will allow them to target a greater number of irresponsible ads in high priority areas and improve reporting on compliance.

Key topics which are of particular interest to regulators, or may see particular change, include:

• Greenwashing claims

Environmental advertising and greenwashing continue to be areas of interest for both the ASA and CMA. Among other investigations, the CMA launched an investigation into consumer protection in the UK green and insulation sector in 2022, raising concerns about greenwashing, misleading claims, and limited transparency of price information. It published advice to help businesses understand their obligations under the DMCC Act and the Consumer Rights Act 2015). Under the Act, the CMA will have greater powers to impose fines. The CMA has also considered greenwashing in the fashion sector.

• Changes under the new Labour government

Tobacco and Vapes: In the King’s Speech in July 2024, the UK’s Labour government pledged to legislate along similar lines to the Conservative government’s Tobacco and Vapes Bill. The party intends to introduce a progressive ban on tobacco sales and prohibit vapes from being branded and advertised to appeal to children. While vaping products and tobacco are already subject to several restrictions, it may be that advertising vape products is soon prohibited altogether.

HFSS and high-caffeine drinks: The new government plans to ban the advertising of junk food and the sale of high-caffeine energy drinks to under-16s. While the ASA does not regulate the sales of products, a ban on sales would likely influence the way in which such products could be promoted. Restrictions on the advertising of HFSS may be tightened further.

In addition, changes to consumer law introduced by the DMCC Act will have an impact on advertisers, such as:

• disclosures about subscription arrangements;
• pricing; and
• dealing with fake reviews.