News

‘Irresponsible’ Huel advert banned in the UK

The UK’s Advertising Standards Authority has banned a video advert by Danone-owned meal replacement brand Huel for “irresponsible” marketing related to diets.

Staged to look like a podcast, the advert featured Huel founder Julian Hearn and the brand’s ambassador, Spencer Matthews, with the latter recalling a conversation with someone he met who “only eats Huel” and who won a long-distance running race in South America “by miles”.

At a glance:

• UK advertising watchdog bans Huel video ad for encouraging irresponsible dietary habits.
• Brands should run legal checks before content goes live, and check it against the marketing codes.
• Will the nutrition company’s new owner Danone clamp down on risky consumer communications?

Hearn responds: “In an ideal world, you should have nutritionally complete whole food. If you could do that for every meal that would be the best solution for life. Most people either don’t do that or can’t have the time to do that, and therefore that’s where Huel fits in the gap.”

The ASA looked at the advert, seen in April and May this year on Instagram and a pre-roll ad on YouTube, following four complaints: that the ad implied Huel products could be a complete replacement for all conventional food, and therefore challenged whether the ads were irresponsible; and whether the health claims complied with the country’s advertising code (the CAP code).

In its evidence, Huel said the ads were specifically designed to address that some consumers used Huel as 100% of their diet, and to correct any misconception that was its intended use.

The nutrition company – which was bought by French giant Danone for €1 billion with the acquisition completed in September – also pointed to the caption on the Instagram post: “Here’s how our founder uses Huel. Spoiler alert, it’s not for every meal.”

However, the ASA concluded that the overall effect of the anecdote was not cautionary. “Rather, it presented an exclusively Huel-based diet as compatible with completing, and significantly outperforming other competitors, in an exceptionally demanding endurance event.”

The authority noted that a diet consisting only of Huel would not provide the same variety in nutrients and other benefits associated with eating a varied diet based on whole foods. The ruling also highlighted that Huel’s products tend to provide up to 400 calories per serving, so an individual would require multiple servings in order to meet average daily energy requirements, rather than simply substituting one serving for each conventional meal.

“We considered that message encouraged or condoned irresponsible dietary habits,” the ASA said. “The ads must not appear again in the form complained of,” the ruling – dated 30 September – reads, adding that Huel had been advised that “future marketing communications did not encourage or condone the exclusive consumption of Huel in place of conventional food. We also told them not to make specific health claims unless they were authorised on the GB NHC Register [the Great Britain Nutrition and Health Claims Register], and not to make general health claims unless they were accompanied by a relevant specific authorised health claim.”

The video was still available on Facebook on 2 October, 2026. The caption on the platform read: “This is a meal. Not a protein shake.” A sidebar reads: “Huel was never meant to replace real food. It’s for the meals that happen away from the kitchen — when cooking isn’t an option and the alternative is usually junk. That’s where functional food makes sense. Real meals stay real. Inconvenient meals get smarter.”

The complaint did not reference Facebook but the ban from the ASA is a blanket one, so it should have come down from that platform too, unless it was an edited version posted there, Iona Silverman, IP and media partner and advertising law specialist at law firm Freeths, told Ingredients Network. Dominic Watkins, partner at law firm DWF, agreed, but added that taking ads down “can take time and are not always as easy as they should be”.

What legal experts said of the ruling

Legal experts said the ruling against Huel is an important reminder that what an ad implies can be as important as what it expressly says. They also suggested brands keep in mind that influencer and ambassador content is brand advertising. “A side-note anecdote in an interview might seem to be a good way to bring the brand to life but, as Huel found, the implications can be far-reaching,” Silverman explained.

The strongest criticism of the ASA’s ‘social responsibility’ finding is that the advertisement expressly told consumers that Huel was used for breakfast and lunch, conventional meals were still eaten, and whole foods were preferable.

Against that background, calling the ad socially irresponsible arguably overstates the impact of a single anecdote, Watkins told Ingredients Network. Huel “would have been better avoiding the athlete in their example and [instead] trying to tackle the complete food point without the implicit connection to athletic achievement. It would be interesting to see if the hero character had been a time poor working mum that ASA would have reached the same conclusion”, Watkins explained.

On Huel making an unapproved specific health claim, Watkins said: “Given its nutritional content Huel can make a bundle of health claims (including for biotin or calcium) and had it used any of those it would have been able to make the claim, but unfortunately it doesn’t appear to have.”

Fifth ASA ruling

There is also a broader M&A lesson, said experts. This is the fifth ruling against Huel in the past four years, but it comes when the company is in the process of being acquired by Danone for around €1 billion.

Silverman said: “I’m sure Danone won’t appreciate the press coverage that this ASA decision has attracted. For businesses investing in or acquiring high-growth consumer brands, advertising and marketing due diligence should sit alongside traditional legal due diligence,” she added.

Brands should run legal checks before content goes live, and those looking to invest or acquire should “do their homework” into a target’s advertising practices before they sign on the dotted line,” said Silverman.