For many brands, Christmas advertising represents one of the most commercially important campaign periods of the year. Seasonal promotions, nostalgic storytelling and product led creative generates significant consumer engagement, but the recent ASA rulings on high fat, salt and sugar (HFSS) advertising show that festive campaigns can also carry real regulatory risk.
Since the UK’s restrictions on paid advertising for HFSS and “less healthy” food and drink products came into force on 5 January 2026, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has published a steady stream of rulings showing how it is enforcing the new regime. In short, paid online ads for identifiable “less healthy” products are banned at any time of day, and TV and on-demand adverts for those products cannot be shown between 5.30am – 9pm (subject to certain exemptions) including for brand advertising. While the rules are aimed at food and drink advertising, the implications extend beyond manufacturers. Retailers, marketplaces, agencies, influencers, media platforms and brands running seasonal campaigns each have a role to play in ensuring compliance.
Ten months in, the rulings give a much clearer picture of where the ASA is drawing the line, and what should be in place before Christmas campaigns go live.
Why Christmas campaigns face particular scrutiny
Christmas marketing often relies on the very things that cause problems under the HFSS regime: highly recognisable products, festive gifting ranges/ limited edition launches, confectionery, luxury treats and seasonal bakery items.
From chocolate selection boxes and advent calendars to festive biscuits and desserts, many products promoted during the festive period are likely to be caught by the restrictions. The key question is whether a specific “less healthy” product can be identified in paid media.
As marketing teams develop and finalise their Christmas campaigns, the question legal teams should be asking is whether the campaign is genuinely brand led or whether, in reality, it promotes a restricted product.
What the rulings tell us so far
The rulings make clear that responsibility does not sit solely with food and drink manufacturers. Retailers, agencies, influencers, marketplaces and advertising platforms all have a role in compliance.
For example, Amazon, Iceland and Lidl were all found in breach as retailers, whilst YO! Sushi was held solely responsible for an advert promoting a dessert made with KitKat, as Nestlé had played no part in paying for or placing it. Morley’s was held responsible for an influencer’s Instagram post because it had paid for the post and asked for the food to be included.
In September, McCain was found in breach due to a Facebook ad showing a restaurant customer’s loaded fries made with its chips, even though McCain’s own fries were not HFSS. McCain argued the ad was aimed at the trade, but the ASA was not satisfied that its Facebook targeting reached only people working in food businesses.
Brand advertising is exempt from the restrictions, but only if the advert does not depict a specific “less healthy” product, or something visually indistinguishable from one. The Lidl Northern Ireland ruling showed that describing a campaign as “brand led” will not, by itself, get it over the line.
Lidl argued that its influencer campaign was intended to promote the retailer rather than a specific product. However, because a bakery product (classified as less healthy) was identifiable within the creative, the ASA concluded that the advert breached the rules.
It appears that the ASA will look at the finished creative and what consumers actually see, not at what the campaign was intended to do.
The M&M’s ruling in July is a useful warning ahead of Christmas. Mars argued that its paid Instagram advert featuring the yellow and green M&M’s characters promoted the brand as a whole – the ASA disagreed in part. The yellow character’s oval shape meant consumers would associate it with Peanut M&M’s, a specific “less healthy” product, whereas the round green character represented the range more generally. Brand mascots are a staple of festive advertising, so it is worth asking whether a character is, in effect, a product.
On the other side of the line, complaints against KFC, Papa John’s and McDonald’s were not upheld because the products shown or named were not “less healthy”, or could not be distinguished from items that were not. Each advertiser was able to back this up with nutrient data for the specific food items. That is the approach to take if a Christmas advert is going to feature food: know exactly which products are in shot, and be able to prove how they are classified if requested.
The rulings against Iceland and, more recently, Domino’s show that compliance depends on reliable product data.
In July, the ASA upheld complaints about Domino’s TV, on-demand and YouTube adverts for its “Cheeky Little Pizza” range. Domino’s had relied on third party nutrient data showing the pizzas were not HFSS, and Clearcast had cleared the TV advert on that basis. The data turned out to be wrong and the Sausage and Bacon pizza was found to be HFSS. The adverts were found in breach anyway, even though Clearcast and the broadcasters had acted in good faith.
It is worth knowing who owns product classification data in the business, how often it is checked / updated, and whether anyone verifies third party data before it is relied on for a campaign.
Two Easter rulings are particularly relevant. Amazon Fresh posted a paid Instagram advert for same day delivery of “your big Easter grocery shops”, showing butter, Yorkshire puddings and a Cadbury Creme Egg Easter egg. The butter and Yorkshire puddings were fine, but the Easter egg alone was enough for the advert to breach the rules. Amazon accepted the advert had run by mistake. Christmas “big shop” adverts showing a spread of festive food carry exactly the same risk.
YO! Sushi’s Easter ad for its limited edition KitKat collaboration did not show any food at all. It used animated text and logos, but the line “Made with KITKAT® Cream Puff” was enough to identify a specific HFSS dessert. Festive collaborations and limited editions should be checked for copy as well as imagery.
Seasonal campaigns often rely on instantly recognisable products and strong visual cues. Whether the product is an Easter egg, Halloween confectionery or a Christmas selection box, the seasonal context makes no difference if the product is clearly identifiable.
A welcome degree of pragmatism
The regulations do not prevent food from appearing incidentally within advertising, instead the key question is whether the advert is promoting an identifiable HFSS product.
The rulings so far show that the ASA is not seeking to prohibit every appearance of food in advertising – for example the complaint against On the Beach was not upheld despite a chocolate doughnut appearing briefly in a television advert, because the food was not deemed to be the subject of the promotion.
Questions to ask before Christmas campaigns launch
As festive campaigns move through approval processes, marketing and legal teams should consider:
Final thoughts
The ASA’s message so far is consistent: if paid advertising promotes an identifiable “less healthy” product, it will be caught, however the campaign is framed.
For legal teams, understanding the rules is important, but forms only one part of the puzzle. The harder part is making sure approvals, product data and agency oversight hold up during the busiest advertising period of the year.
Be part of a growing global community committed to advancing in-house legal leadership.
The English High Court has shown in two recent judgments (both in Hasbro Consumer Products Licensing Ltd & Anor v SConnect Co. Ltd & Ors...
Learn more about The English High Court: a pragmatic and effective forum for global rights holders
Artificial Intelligence has transformed the way information is processed and consumed, offering unprecedented capabilities and value across fields like medicine, law, journalism, and finance. However,...
Learn more about AI hallucinations: when creation comes at a cost, who pays?
