Consultation outcome

Response to brand advertising exemption from advertising restrictions for less healthy food or drink

Updated 10 September 2025

Executive summary

This document sets out the government’s response to the consultation on draft advertising regulations, which was held between 16 July and 6 August 2025.

This consultation response highlights the main themes identified through the responses to the consultation and provides an analysis of the responses to each question. It sets out the government’s response to the issues raised in the consultation, the changes made to the draft regulations and the next steps.

The advertising restrictions for less healthy food or drink on television (TV) and online (‘the restrictions’) will take effect UK-wide on 5 January 2026. However, we welcome the commitment from advertisers and broadcasters, with support from the online platforms, to voluntarily comply with the restrictions in line with the government’s policy intentions from 1 October 2025. 

The finalised Advertising (Less Healthy Food and Drink) (Brand Advertising Exemption) Regulations 2025 and explanatory memorandum were laid on 10 September 2025 alongside the publication of this consultation response.

Introduction

This government has a bold ambition to raise the healthiest generation of children ever and this includes tackling the childhood obesity crisis. As part of this, we committed in our manifesto to ban junk food advertising on TV and online.

The advertising restrictions comprise a ban on advertising less healthy food or drink products on TV between 5:30am and 9pm, and a ban on paid-for advertising of these products online at any time. They are designed to reduce children’s exposure to less healthy food or drink products because the evidence is clear that this contributes to childhood obesity. As set out in the impact assessment, published with the outcome to the Further advertising restrictions for products high in fat, salt and sugar consultation’ in June 2021, we expect the restrictions to remove up to 7.2 billion calories from UK children’s diets each year.

The government made a written ministerial statement (WMS) on 22 May 2025 which announced we would set out an explicit brand advertising exemption in legislation to provide clarity to the regulators and industry so that businesses can invest with confidence in advertising that will be compliant with the restrictions.

To allow time to consult on the draft regulations, we laid legislation on 3 June 2025 to move the formal date these restrictions take effect from 1 October 2025 to 5 January 2026. However, we secured agreement from advertisers and broadcasters, with the support of online platforms and publishers, to voluntarily comply with the restrictions as though they would still take effect from 1 October 2025. We welcome this co-operation from broadcasters and advertisers.

The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), in partnership with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, consulted on the draft Advertising (Less Healthy Food and Drink) (Brand Advertising Exemption) Regulations 2025 (‘the draft regulations’) between 16 July and 6 August 2025 to give stakeholders an opportunity to provide their views on the draft regulations.

This consultation reiterated the government’s policy position on brand advertising in relation to less healthy food or drink products, as it was understood by Parliament during the passage of the Health and Care Act 2022. We have been clear throughout the policy’s development that brand advertising which does not identify less healthy food or drink products is out of scope of the restrictions.

We have been careful in the regulations to provide an exemption for brand advertising that is within the scope of the primary legislation (the Communications Act 2003 as amended by the Health and Care Act 2022) and does not change or weaken the policy intention of restricting advertisements for identifiable less healthy food or drink products.

We have demonstrated in the consultation response where we have carefully considered the comments and issues raised by stakeholders. We also engaged some key stakeholders representing health non-governmental organisations (NGOs), trade associations and the regulators during the consultation period. This consultation response takes all of these views into account and details how the draft regulations have been amended.

The finalised Advertising (Less Healthy Food and Drink) (Brand Advertising Exemption) Regulations 2025 and explanatory memorandum were laid on 10 September 2025 alongside the publication of this consultation response.

Consultation responses

This consultation sought views on the draft regulations to make sure they are clear and fit for purpose in achieving the government’s policy intentions.

The consultation was focused solely on the nature of the brand advertising exemption set out in the regulations and the clarity of the drafting. The consultation did not invite feedback on other aspects of the policy, which have already been confirmed following previous consultations and enshrined in law in the primary legislation and The Advertising (Less Healthy Food Definitions and Exemptions) Regulations 2024. 

We are unable to respond to feedback outside of the scope of this consultation, such as views on the policy decision to exempt brand advertising from the restrictions or the wider policy, both of which have been subject to previous consultations.

Government response

Breakdown of responses

The consultation received 65 responses. Of these:

• 18 were from individuals, of which:
  • 13 respondents were sharing their personal views and experiences
  • 5 shared their professional views
• 47 were from organisations, of which:
  • 19 were from food and drinks industry businesses (including trade associations)
  • 15 were from advertisers, broadcasters and news outlets (including trade associations)
  • 10 were from non-governmental organisations and/or charity organisations
  • 3 were from local government

It was mandatory for respondents to answer all 7 consultation questions for the response to be submitted and included in the analysis. For each question, those who selected ‘Disagree, it is not clear’ or ‘I don’t know’ had an opportunity to provide an explanation for their answer. A summary of the feedback, common themes and substantive comments is set out in the response below.

Some respondents responded with ‘I don’t know’, or ‘disagree, it is not clear’ and then specified in the free-text box that they agreed with the question. In the survey feedback, respondents explained that they wanted the opportunity to provide an explanation for their answer. We have quantified instances of this and have provided a summary of the scope of the comments for those who disagreed or answered with ‘I don’t know’ for each question to provide a more accurate representation of the feedback.

Overarching themes

We observed several overarching themes from the consultation feedback. The most prominent theme was around the clarity or specificity of the draft regulations including definitions, as well as the scope of the draft regulations and ensuring consistent and robust enforcement.

Clarity for how brand advertisements will be treated by the restrictions

As set out in written statements to Parliament on 7 April and 22 May 2025, the government’s view remains that brand advertisements that do not identify a specific less healthy food or drink product are not in scope of the advertising restrictions for less healthy food or drink on TV and online.

Do you agree or disagree that the draft regulations make clear how brand advertisements will be treated by the advertising restrictions?

Consultation feedback

Of the 65 respondents:

• 24 agreed that it was clear
• 35 disagreed that it was clear
• 6 responded with ‘I don’t know’

Of those who disagreed that it is clear or responded with ‘I don’t know’ (41 in total), 3 confirmed in their feedback that they agreed with the question, 28 provided feedback related to the drafting of the regulations and 10 shared concerns that were out of scope of the consultation to explain their answer, relating to either the policy decision to exempt brand advertising or wider policy decisions. Overall, 27 respondents in total agreed with the question.

Of those who disagreed that it is clear or responded with ‘I don’t know’ (and provided an explanation for their answer), common themes included:

• highlighting the technical nature of the draft regulations
• requests for the draft regulations to include the date on which the regulations will take effect (5 January 2026), and some advocated for the addition of a review clause
• requests for robust and consistent enforcement to maintain a level playing field

Respondents commonly used this question as an opportunity to provide a summary of their feedback on the draft regulations as a whole. Where comments were raised in relation to specific elements of the draft regulations, we have considered these comments as part of the theming under the respective questions in this document. For example, a comment relating to the definition of ‘depict’ has been considered within that question below.

Government response

We have been clear throughout the development of the advertising restrictions policy that brand advertising which does not identify less healthy products is out of scope of the restrictions. This is the position held by the government and understood by Parliament during the passage of the Health and Care Act 2022.

We acknowledge that some food or drink brands are exclusively or strongly associated with less healthy products. However, as set out in the WMS of 7 April 2025 we have also been clear that we do not intend to pigeon-hole brands as being less healthy and instead, where possible, want to incentivise brands to reformulate products and promote their healthier options. We acknowledged in our WMS of 22 May 2025 that regulators and industry needed clarity to be able to invest in advertising with confidence and to ensure advertisements comply with the regulations. The regulations make clear at paragraph 3 of regulation 2 that the brand advertising exemption will be determined on the content of the advertisement and not contextual factors, such as brand association or perception.

Some respondents raised concerns that the draft regulations were complex and technical. A certain degree of complexity is inevitable but the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is developing implementation guidance to help businesses to interpret the regulations and prepare for implementation of the restrictions. The consultation document explained that the first test of whether an advertisement is for a less healthy food or drink product or products remains the primary legislation in the Communications Act 2003. The regulations exempt advertisements for company brands and brands of ranges of products, but not advertisements in which specific less healthy products are depicted, whether through branding techniques, images or other depictions. We have engaged Ofcom and ASA as the regulators on the implementation and enforcement of the regulations to ensure they are clear and fit for purpose.

Some respondents requested that we review the regulations to assess their implementation and whether they remain fit for purpose. We will ensure that these regulations are reviewed as part of the existing post-implementation review of The Advertising (Less Healthy Food Definitions and Exemptions) Regulations 2024.

Definition of ‘brand advertisement’

Do you agree or disagree that the draft regulations provide a clear definition of a ‘brand advertisement’?

Consultation feedback

Of the 65 respondents:

• 29 agreed that it was clear
• 30 disagreed
• 6 responded with ‘I don’t know’

Of those who disagreed that it is clear or responded with ‘I don’t know’ (36 in total), 6 confirmed in their feedback that they agreed with the question, 27 provided feedback related to the drafting of the regulations and 3 shared concerns that were out of scope of the consultation to explain their answer, relating to either the policy decision to exempt brand advertising or wider policy decisions. Overall, most respondents, 35 in total, agreed with the question.

Of those who disagreed that it is clear or responded with ‘I don’t know’ (and provided an explanation for their answer), common themes included:

• concerns around the treatment of brands which are both a brand for a range of products and a brand for a specific less healthy product
• clarification on whether certain types of advertisements would be permitted, such as advertisements promoting a brand’s corporate social responsibility or sustainability commitments
• clarification around the use of logos as well as brand names in an advertisement

Government response

We acknowledged in the consultation document that brand advertising is complex and constantly evolving. Industry, advertising and health NGO stakeholders understand it is difficult to draw clear lines between different types of food or drink brand advertising. Branding structures may be complex across products and ranges and can vary between organisations and sectors.

The consultation document explained that we have therefore taken a broad approach to brand advertising, as ASA suggested in its draft guidance. We have been careful to protect the primary aim of the policy to restrict advertising for less healthy food or drink products while giving as much clarity to businesses and the regulators as possible.

Regulation 2 provides that brand advertisements for brands of ranges of products are exempt and the definition of a range of products at paragraph 7 (c) of regulation 2 clarifies that a range of products may contain less healthy food or drink products. However, paragraph 4 of regulation 2 states that advertisements for brands which are the brand of a specific less healthy food drink product only, not of a range of products, are not exempt. Paragraph 3 of regulation 2 of the regulations is also clear that naming a specific less healthy food or drink product or products (unless paragraph 6 of regulation 2 applies), and using the name of the product in various branding techniques to depict a product or products, would mean the advertisement could not benefit from the exemption. The regulations reflect the primary aim of the policy to restrict advertisements for less healthy food or drink products, which has always been understood since the policy was confirmed and the primary legislation went through Parliamentary scrutiny in 2021 to 2022. 

However, a number of respondents to the consultation raised concerns about how the draft regulations would treat brands where the identical name is shared by a brand of a range of products and by a specific less healthy food or drink product. This is a complex issue and reflects how brands have continued to evolve for several decades. Some long-established food or drink brands evolved from a single specific product and are understood today to be brands of ranges of products. The ‘classic’ or ‘original’ version of the product may have been renamed to distinguish it from the different flavours or types of product that make up the rest of the range, but in other instances that was not felt necessary. Other brands which were launched as a range, with several variants or flavours, all with different names, would meet the definition of a range of products in paragraph 7 (c) of regulation 2.

In order to recognise how branding has already evolved over a long period of time, the regulations already provided for the situation where a company might share a name with its original product. We accept that this is also the case with ranges. We have therefore amended paragraph 6 of regulation 2 to reflect that brands of ranges of products that share their name with a specific less healthy food or drink product may still advertise using that name. As with the company name, this is limited to brands which were already in use immediately before 16 July 2025, in order to prevent a situation where a range could be deliberately created to share exactly the same name as a less healthy product within it. The prohibition on depicting a specific less healthy food or drink product in paragraph 3 of regulation 2 continues to apply, excepting only the use of the shared name.

Some respondents asked for clarity on non-product advertising, such as advertisements promoting corporate and social responsibilities of a brand. By exempting advertisements that promote a brand, including the brand of a range of products, but that do not depict a specific less healthy food or drink product or products, the effect of the regulations is that advertisements that promote the non-product attributes of a brand are not restricted. This reflects the policy intention which was re-confirmed by this government in the WMS of 7 April 2025.

Some respondents asked for clarity on brand logos. With the exception of products in which paragraph 6 of regulation 2 applies, a logo belonging only to a specific less healthy product is not permitted under paragraph 3 of regulation 2 because it is essentially an advertisement for that product. However, logos for company brands and brands of ranges of products are permitted, provided that the content of the advertisement does not depict a specific less healthy product or products. To clarify this, we have added ‘logo’ to the list of branding techniques listed in the definition of ‘depict’ at paragraph 7 (a) under regulation 2 and clarified that ‘name’ includes a name appearing in the logo of a company or the logo of a brand of a range of products at paragraph 3 (a) of regulation 2. 

Definition of ‘depict’

Do you agree or disagree that the draft regulations provide a clear definition of ‘depict’?

Consultation feedback

Of the 65 respondents:

• 25 agreed that it was clear
• 36 disagreed
• 4 responded with ‘I don’t know’

Of those who disagreed that it is clear or responded with ‘I don’t know’ (40 in total), 2 confirmed in their feedback that they agreed with the question, 34 provided feedback related to the drafting of the regulations and 4 shared concerns that were out of scope of the consultation to explain their answer, relating to either the policy decision to exempt brand advertising or wider policy decisions. Overall, 27 respondents in total agreed with the question.

Of those respondents who disagreed that it is clear or responded with ‘I don’t know’ (and provided an explanation for their answer), common themes included:

• clarification around the relationship between the primary legislation and the draft regulations
• confirmation that advertisements will only be assessed on their content, rather than contextual factors
• specificity around what is meant by ‘other branding techniques’, either in the draft regulations or by means of guidance
• clarification around the prominence of a specific less healthy food or drink product in an advertisement
• clarification around the inclusion of legally-required disclaimers which direct consumers to a company’s website

Government response

We have been clear throughout the development of this policy that brand advertising which does not identify less healthy food or drink products is out of scope of the restrictions. Some respondents asked for clarity on how the regulations interact with the advertising restrictions set out in the primary legislation. We have explained in the consultation document and this consultation response that the test of whether an advertisement is for an identifiable less healthy food or drink product or products in the primary legislation remains the first test when assessing an advertisement. If an advertisement is not restricted by the primary legislation, then the advertisement is permitted. The advertisement would not be assessed against these regulations alone because they cannot be used in isolation from the primary legislation.

The regulations are clear that they exempt brand advertisements using powers in the primary legislation under sections 321A (3) (b), 368FA (3), 368Z14 (4) and 402 (3) of the Communications Act 2003. The regulations do not replace or interfere with the ‘identifiability test’ within the primary legislation. The regulations can only exempt advertisements from the restrictions in the primary legislation, they cannot broaden the scope of the restrictions.

Where the regulator determines that an advertisement may be for an identifiable less healthy food or drink product or products, it will then consider whether the advertisement meets the criteria of a ‘brand advertisement’ in the regulations and is exempt from the restrictions.

There were concerns raised around brand perception. Paragraph 3 of regulation 2 focuses on whether the content of the advertisement ‘depicts’ a specific less healthy food or drink product or products. This does not include wider contextual factors such as brand perception or its association with less healthy products because the policy intention is not to pigeon-hole brands as being ‘less healthy’ and instead to incentivise product reformulation.

The definition of ‘depict’ at paragraph 7 (a) of regulation 2 includes ways in which advertisements may depict a specific less healthy food or drink product or products by showing it through imagery or naming it in text and audio, brand and/or logo or through other branding techniques (on their own or in combination). Some respondents raised concerns that this is a non-exhaustive list. We recognise that branding techniques are sophisticated and constantly evolving and so it is important that the regulator has the discretion and can respond to branding techniques that are developed to depict less healthy food or drink products. Some respondents raised concerns that brand characters were not explicitly listed at paragraph 7 (a) of regulation 2. In response, we have amended the list to make clear that advertisements which include brand characters that relate to a specific less healthy food or drink product or products are not exempt. Brand characters that relate only to brands of ranges of products or companies will not be restricted.

Some respondents raised concerns about how the draft regulations consider the concept of ‘prominence’ in terms of products being depicted in an advertisement. As mentioned above, the regulations will only be applied if the regulator has already determined under the primary legislation that an advertisement is potentially for an identifiable less healthy food or drink product or products. An advertisement that could not reasonably be considered to be for an identifiable less healthy food or drink product (for example, because the product is part of a background) would not be caught. The regulator will make this determination and set out further detail in its implementation guidance.

Some respondents asked for specific confirmation around corporate brand advertising. As explained above and in the WMS of 7 April 2025, corporate brand advertising is out of scope of the advertising restrictions. Paragraph 3 of regulation 2 does not exempt advertisements where the content depicts a specific less healthy food or drink product or products by naming it. Paragraph 6 of regulation 2 was included in the draft regulations to avoid a scenario where existing company brands which include the full name of a specific less healthy product could have been automatically restricted under the definition of ‘depict’. Paragraph 6 of regulation 2 means that these companies can continue to advertise their corporate brands, provided that the content of the advertisement does not depict a specific less healthy product in any other way.

We acknowledge that paragraph 4 of regulation 2 had created some confusion among respondents about how the regulations would treat brands for specific less healthy products with names similar to company names. We carefully considered comments on this issue and as explained above, we have amended paragraph 6 of regulation 2 to permit advertisements for brands of ranges of products that share their name with a specific less healthy food or drink product to promote that brand if it was held or in use by that brand for the purposes of marketing, advertising or retail sale immediately before 16 July 2025 (see sub-paragraph b).

Some respondents raised concerns over the inclusion of legally required disclaimers in an advertisement which directs consumers to their website to view terms and conditions. Some websites may depict less healthy foods on their homepage and concern was raised over whether the inclusion of the link could prevent the otherwise compliant advertisement from benefiting from the exemption.

The brand advertisement exemption will be determined on the content of the advertisement itself, and to be restricted, an advertisement must be for a specific less healthy product or products. The advertising restrictions will not impact compliance with other legal requirements.

Definition of ‘range of products’

Do you agree or disagree that the draft regulations are clear on how the exemption will apply to a brand for a ‘range of products’?

Consultation feedback

Of the 65 total respondents:

• 36 agreed that it was clear
• 22 disagreed that is it clear
• 7 responded with ‘I don’t know’

Of those who disagreed that it is clear or responded with ‘I don’t know’ (29 in total), 4 confirmed in their feedback that they agreed with the question, 22 provided feedback related to the drafting of the regulations and 3 shared concerns that were out of scope of the consultation to explain their answer, relating to either the policy decision to exempt brand advertising or wider policy decisions. Overall, most respondents, 40 in total, agreed with the question.

Of those respondents who disagreed that it is clear or responded with ‘I don’t know’ (and provided an explanation for their answer), common themes included:

• concerns that the draft regulations would enable the promotion of less healthy ranges and would not encourage reformulation to create healthier products
• specificity around the treatment of types of packaging, sizing and combinations
• clarity around whether certain product variants would be considered a range, such as different flavours, recipes and sub-brands

Government response

We have been clear throughout the policy’s development that brand advertisements that do not identify less healthy food or drink products are out of scope of the restrictions. We accept that brand advertisements may relate to corporate brands and brands of ranges of products associated with less healthy products. As set out during the passage of the primary legislation, and reiterated in the WMS of 7 April 2025, we do not intend to pigeon-hole brands as being ‘less healthy’ and instead want to incentivise brands to reformulate and to advertise their healthier options. The regulations provide an exemption for brands, including brands of ranges of products, provided that the content of an advertisement does not depict a specific less healthy food or drink product or products.    

The definition of a range of products at paragraph 7 (c) of regulation 2 states it may include variants of a product such as different flavours. However, it states that a range may not include products distinguished only by pack size or packaging format, such as carton, tin, block or bag. Some respondents asked for clarity around whether a range of products could comprise a product where the same recipe is presented in different shapes or sizes, such as a chocolate bar being full size or ‘fun-size’, or milk chocolate being offered as a bar or buttons. Paragraph 7 (c) (ii) of regulation 2 is a non-exhaustive list and would determine that different sizes or formats of the same product, such as bars and buttons, would not constitute a range. This is also the case for a ‘specific’ product as defined at paragraph 7 (d) (ii) of regulation 2.

Definition for ‘specific’ less healthy food or drink product

Do you agree or disagree that the draft regulations provide a clear definition of a ‘specific’ less healthy food or drink product?

Consultation feedback

Of the 65 respondents:

• 31 agreed it is clear
• 25 disagreed that is it clear
• 9 responded with ‘I don’t know’

Of those who disagreed that it is clear or responded with ‘I don’t know’ (34 in total), 7 confirmed in their feedback that they agreed with the question, 25 provided feedback related to the drafting of the regulations and 2 shared concerns that were out of scope of the consultation to explain their answer, relating to either the policy decision to exempt brand advertising or wider policy decisions. Overall, most respondents, 38 in total, agreed with the question.

Of those respondents who disagreed that it is clear or responded with ‘I don’t know’ (and provided an explanation for their answer), common themes included:

• the use of ‘specific’ in the draft regulations compared with ‘identifiable’ in the primary legislation
• clarification around whether the draft regulations applied to ‘product’ in the singular or plural
• the use of ‘visually indistinguishable from a specific less healthy food or drink product’ alongside ‘uniquely distinguished from other products capable of being purchased’ in the draft regulations
• clarification on the treatment of generic imagery (see government response below on the definition of ‘photographic image’)

Government response

Some respondents asked for clarity on why the draft regulations used the term ‘specific’ less healthy food or drink product or products instead of ‘identifiable’ which is used in the primary legislation. As explained above, the ‘identifiability test’ in the primary legislation remains the first test when assessing an advertisement. The regulations are only considered when the regulator determines that an advertisement is potentially for an ‘identifiable’ less healthy product. 

The term ‘specific’ is used in the regulations to set objective criteria for what is being depicted in the content of the advertisement. A ‘specific’ less healthy food or drink product is defined at paragraph 7 (d) of regulation 2 as one that is capable of being purchased. The primary legislation states that a ‘less healthy’ food or drink product is in part determined by its Nutrient Profiling Model (NPM) score. Focusing on a food or drink product that is purchasable will mean the nutritional information will be available to determine if it is ‘less healthy’.

The definition states that, as well as being capable of being purchased, a ‘specific’ food or drink product must be differentiated from other products. If it is only differentiated from other products by pack size or packaging format, such as carton, tin, block or bag, the regulations will not recognise it as a separate ‘specific’ product. This is also a criterion for a ‘range of products’, as explained above.

The regulations include specific products in the singular and plural, which means if a brand advertisement depicts one or more specific less healthy food or drink products, it will not be exempt from the advertising restrictions. This legal drafting is set out in the Interpretation Act 1978.

Some respondents asked for clarity around whether the term ‘uniquely distinguished’ at paragraph 7 (d) (ii) of regulation 2 works alongside the term ‘visually indistinguishable’ at paragraph 5 (b) of regulation 2. These terms serve different purposes in the regulations, however we have provided alternative wording so that different terminology is used for clarity. We have amended paragraph 7 (d) (ii) of regulation 2 to state ‘differentiated’ in relation to ‘specific’ products and amended paragraph 7 (c) (ii) of regulation 2 to state ‘differentiated’ in relation to products in a range of products. We have retained the term ‘visually indistinguishable’ at paragraph 5 (b) of regulation 2. This achieves its purpose by using terminology that demonstrates how to tell apart specific products and products in a range, as well as explaining that the regulations intend to restrict realistic images of food and drink that the viewer would not be able to tell apart from images of specific less healthy products.

Definition of ‘photographic image’ of a food or drink product

Do you agree or disagree that the draft regulations provide a clear definition of a ‘photographic image’ of a food or drink product?

Consultation feedback

Of the 65 respondents:

• 29 agreed it is clear
• 32 disagreed that is it clear
• 4 responded with ‘I don’t know’

Of those who disagreed that it is clear or responded with ‘I don’t know’ (36 in total), 5 confirmed in their feedback that they agreed with the question, 27 provided feedback related to the drafting of the regulations and 4 shared concerns that were out of scope of the consultation to explain their answer, relating to either the policy decision to exempt brand advertising or wider policy decisions. Overall, most respondents, 34 in total, agreed with the question.

Of those respondents who disagreed that it is clear or responded with ‘I don’t know’ (and provided an explanation for their answer), common themes included:

• clarity around whether moving imagery or video is captured in the definition
• futureproofing the regulations as imagery is evolving to CGI, stylised illustrations
• rationale around why ‘photographic imagery’ has been drawn out of the list of criteria in the definition of ‘depict’

Government response

The regulations are clear that the exemption only applies to advertisements that promote brands, and we do not expect them to promote products.

The purpose of paragraph 5 of regulation 2 is to make clear that we do not expect advertisements to include realistic images of food or drink products that are visually indistinguishable from ‘specific’ less healthy products. The example given in the consultation document to illustrate this was where an advertisement includes a picture of a chocolate bar out of its wrapper and it is not clear which specific chocolate bar within a range is depicted. Although the picture could be one of 2 products, because the difference in flavour is not visually identifiable, in this instance it would not benefit from the exemption just because it cannot be demonstrated which of the 2 alternatives is photographed in the advertisement.

To make this clear, we have amended paragraph 5 of regulation 2 to replace the term ‘photographic image’ with ‘realistic image’ and we have provided a definition for ‘realistic image’ at paragraph 7 (e) of regulation 2. We were also asked for clarity on whether photographic imagery includes still and moving imagery. Therefore, the new definition for ‘realistic image’ means a photograph, video recording or an image, whether still or moving, however created or altered, that is so realistic as to make it indistinguishable for all practical purposes from a photograph or video recording. Paragraph 5 of regulation 2 also states that realistic imagery can include product packaging provided that the food or drink product itself is not shown. However, this would need to be packaging that is generic to a range, because paragraph 3 of regulation 2 does not permit depictions of specific products through imagery or other branding techniques which would include images of product packaging. This would be the same for other imagery (that can include illustrations or cartoons) of product packaging.

Some respondents queried the treatment of generic imagery, for example, other types of imagery of food products, including illustrations or cartoons, which are not identifiable as a specific less healthy product for sale. The primary legislation already addresses generic imagery as the restrictions only apply to ‘identifiable’ less healthy food or drink products. An image that does not meet the test in paragraph 3 of regulation 2 of ‘depicting’ a specific less healthy food or drink product or products would not be restricted, providing that it is not a realistic image of a food or drink product that is visually indistinguishable from a specific less healthy food or drink product. Some respondents asked for clarity around the prominence of imagery used. As explained above, the ‘identifiability test’ in the primary legislation already takes account of the prominence of representations of less healthy food or drink products in advertisements and the regulations do not replace that test.

Some respondents raised concerns that reformulated non-less healthy food or drink products may look similar to their less healthy versions and therefore would be restricted under the regulations. If an advertisement is identifiable as being for a non-less healthy product, it will not be in scope of the advertising restrictions under the primary legislation. If an advertiser wishes to include in an advertisement realistic imagery of a non-less healthy food or drink product or products that is visually indistinguishable from a specific less healthy product, they can make clear in the advertisement which product is represented to benefit from exemption.

Some respondents queried advertisements that include imagery of ingredients of food or drink products. The Advertising (Less Healthy Food Definitions and Exemptions) Regulations 2024 set out the food and drink products that are in scope of the advertising restrictions. The regulations clearly address depictions and imagery of specific less healthy food or drink products and the definition of ‘specific’ at paragraph 7(d) of regulation 2 states that the product must be capable of being purchased.

We were also asked about advertisements for a company that may include realistic imagery of a less healthy food or drink product that it does not produce or sell. The Communications Act 2003 places responsibility on TV broadcasters and on-demand services providers for ensuring compliance with the restrictions that apply to those media. For the restrictions on paid-for advertising online, it is the advertiser that is responsible. The regulations set clear criteria to determine if the content of the advertisement includes realistic imagery of food or drink products. This will be determined by the regulator which will set out further detail in its implementation guidance.

Clarification on the name of a company, franchise or commercial entity that includes the full name of a specific less healthy food or drink product

Do you agree or disagree that the draft regulations are clear that a company, franchise or other commercial entity whose name includes the full name of a specific less healthy food or drink product can still advertise its brand, as long as it was established before 16 July 2025?

Consultation feedback

Of the 65 respondents:

• 27 agreed it is clear
• 30 disagreed that is it clear
• 8 responded with ‘I don’t know’

Of those who disagreed that it is clear or responded with ‘I don’t know’ (38 in total), 7 confirmed in their feedback that they agreed with the question, 18 provided feedback related to the drafting of the regulations and 13 shared concerns that were out of scope of the consultation to explain their answer, relating to either the policy decision to exempt brand advertising or wider policy decisions. Overall, most respondents, 34 in total, agreed with the question.

Of those respondents who disagreed that it is clear or responded with ‘I don’t know’ (and provided an explanation for their answer), common themes included:

• consistent enforcement for businesses established before and after 16 July 2025
• rationale for including ‘which is the producer of that product’ in paragraph 2(6)
• definitions in the draft regulations, for ‘established’ or ‘company’
• clarity around the treatment of trading names or trademark brands

Government response

As explained above, paragraph 3 of regulation 2 of the regulations does not exempt depictions of specific less healthy food or drink products in the content of advertisements, and this includes by way of name (as set out in the definition of ‘depict’ at paragraph 7 (a) of regulation 2). As explained in our response above, we do not intend advertisements for company brands to be automatically restricted because for historical reasons their name includes the full name of a specific less healthy product. Paragraph 6 of regulation 2 was included in the draft regulations to avoid this scenario. However, the draft regulations stated this is only where the company existed at the time the legislation was consulted upon (16 July 2025). We stated in the consultation document that we were seeking views on whether this paragraph was needed in the regulations.

There was some confusion from consultation respondents on paragraph 6 of regulation 2 in relation to paragraph 4 of regulation 2 on the use of brands of specific less healthy food or drink products. As stated above, we have expanded paragraph 6 to clarify that the exemption applies to brands of ranges of products which share their name with a specific less healthy product, providing the brand was in use and held that name immediately before 16 July 2025, as the same considerations apply. Paragraph 3 of regulation 2 clarifies the way in which naming of specific less healthy products in relation to names of companies and brands of ranges of products is permitted.

Some respondents raised concerns that including a date which the company had to have been established would only provide this exemption to existing companies, which would disadvantage new companies established after 16 July 2025.

We have retained paragraph 6 of regulation 2 in the regulations as it provides an important exemption to avoid an unintended consequence of the regulations on corporate brand advertising. While we accept that it could be unfair to disadvantage a company because for historical reasons its name or its brand name includes the full name of the specific product with which it originates, future companies and brands have the opportunity to avoid this situation. This exemption is only for companies, franchises or commercial entities which include the full name of a specific less healthy product and the brands of ranges of products that have the same name as an existing specific less healthy product, providing the brand was held or in use by that brand for the purposes of marketing, advertising or retail sale immediately before 16 July 2025.

We have been asked to clarify if this relates to companies that are only established in the UK or whether it also relates to the name of companies that have been acquired. If the company trades in the UK then it does not matter where the company was established.

Some respondents queried the reference to ‘producer of that product’, highlighting that products are often made by a co-packer rather than the company itself, and the draft text created an unnecessary qualifier. As a result, we have removed this text from paragraph 6 of regulation 2.

Next steps

The finalised Advertising (Less Healthy Food and Drink) (Brand Advertising Exemption) Regulations 2025 were laid before Parliament on 10 September 2025 alongside publication of this consultation response.

We are working closely with Ofcom and ASA, as the regulators, as ASA finalises its implementation guidance ahead of the advertising restrictions taking effect on 5 January 2026.