The rulings, made across social media sites TikTok and Meta, were among the last rulings in 2024.
Katia Merten-Lentz, partner at Food Law Science & Partners, told NutraIngredients, that “through these rulings, the ASA sends a clear message to the dietary supplement industry by reminding them of the basic regulations that apply in this area.”
She explained that when it comes to online activity, the principle is that everything that is forbidden, or authorized, in physical form, is also forbidden online.
“Every food operator must therefore ensure that all their online communications and marketing comply with current regulations,” Merten-Lentz said.
ASA bans Vivo Life TikTok ads
On Dec. 18, the ASA ruled against Vivostore Ltd, trading as Vivo Life, for breaching advertising regulations in two TikTok ads promoting its Vitamin B12 droplets.
One ad featured content creator Ashley Osbourne endorsing the product as a substitute for Vitamin B12 injections, claiming it improved his mood and energy levels.
“Drop it in your mouth. It tastes amazing. I don’t need to go anywhere else to get my injection. I take them every morning. My mood’s a lot better. My energy’s better. Vitamin B12. They’ve got a deal on. Go and check it out,” he said.
The second ad showcased @Karincreations, also a content creator, stating the product was as effective as injections and highlighting its quick impact on her energy and tiredness.
“I felt the difference on day two. I have been tired for 30 years. Nothing really works […] So, when Vivo Life told me they have got this supplement of B12 that is just as effective as having a B12 injection, I am now on day three, and this works. I feel I’ve got the energy to get up and do stuff,” she said in the video.
B12 deficiency treatment claims
The ASA ruled that the ads implied the product could treat vitamin B12 deficiency, violating rules prohibiting food supplements from claiming to prevent or treat medical conditions. Statements like “just as effective as having a B12 injection” were deemed misleading.
As Merten-Lentz said, a food supplement should not be marketed in a way that suggests it has curative properties, as this falls under the domain of medicines.
“While advertisers like to be creative, its company selling a disguised medicine or using non-authorized claims would be subject to significant sanction,” she said.
Additionally, the ads suggested consumers stop medically prescribed injections, with phrases such as “you need to f*** them off and get these.” The ASA ruled these claims irresponsible, as they could discourage appropriate medical treatment.
Finally, it was deemed that statements about improved mood and energy levels exaggerated authorized health claims on the GB Nutrition and Health Claims Register.
For example, “my energy’s better” overstated the claim that B12 “contributes to normal energy-yielding metabolism.”
As Merten-Lentz explained, “By virtue of the Regulation, authorized claims for vitamin B12 only include ‘Vitamin B12 contributes to normal psychological function’ and ‘Vitamin B12 contributes to normal energy-yielding metabolism’.”
The ASA concluded the ads breached rules on social responsibility, food supplement claims and unauthorized health claims.
Vivo Life was instructed to ensure that future ads do not claim its product treats clinical deficiencies, discourage medical treatment or use unauthorized health claims. The ads must not appear again in their current form.
The role of influencers
The role of influencers has been, for several years, under increasingly stricter scrutiny by regulators, Merten-Lentz said.
However, it is important to distinguish between food operators who have full control over their commercial communications from the others.
“Some influencers are specifically mandated by a company, and in this case, the company will be held responsible for any misleading statements as it is presumed to have approved the messaging,” Merten-Lentz added.
“On the contrary, some influencers might voluntarily promote, on their own initiative, a product, making it more difficult to identify the entity responsible.”
Ovira ads banned for misleading weight-loss claims
On Dec. 11, the ASA upheld three complaints against Ovira Australia t/a Ovira UK for breaching advertising rules in three paid Meta ads for its “Curb Crave” food supplement.
The ads promoted benefits like appetite suppression, fat burning and craving control without evidence that these claims were authorized under the GB NHC Register. The product name “Curb Crave” was also considered a health claim without proper authorization, breaching the CAP Code.
One ad stated that users could “Lose 15-20% of body weight,” which violated the CAP Code, as food supplements cannot make claims about a specific amount of weight loss.
“Claiming precise percentages is forbidden under the EU specific Regulation which is still followed by the ASA,” Merten-Lentz explained.
Additionally, the ads suggested the product could help with weight gain related to PCOS and menopause, implying it had medicinal effects. They also referenced prescription weight-loss medications, further suggesting unauthorized medicinal properties.
Ovira admitted the ads were part of a global campaign and were not adapted to UK regulations. The company removed the ads and committed to reviewing its marketing practices.
The ASA ruled that the ads must not reappear in the same form and instructed Ovira to ensure future ads comply with UK advertising rules.
Claims made on food supplements can often be problematic due to their frequent misuse by those making the claim, Merten-Lentz noted.
“In the UK, like in the EU, authorizations for health claims are hard to get, and as a result, food business operators frequently attempt to stretch the boundaries of what is acceptable when advertising their products, putting themselves at risk of fines or other sanctions.”
She concluded that advertising in any country means following the regulations in force in that country.
“Consequently, advertisements must be adapted to their place of presentation, just as the packaging of a product sold in the UK will not be the same as the one of a product sold in the USA.”