Background
This Ruling forms part of a wider piece of work on food supplements that made medical and health claims for weight loss. The ads were identified for investigation following intelligence gathering by our Active Ad Monitoring system, which uses AI to proactively search for online ads that might break the rules.
Update to Advertising Codes (7 April 2025)
On 7 April 2025, the Advertising Codes were updated to reflect the revocation and restatement of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs – the legislation from which the majority of the CAP and BCAP rules on misleading advertising derived) by the Unfair Commercial Practices provisions in the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA).
On that date, the wording of a number of the rules in the Advertising Codes was changed to reflect relevant changes introduced by the DMCCA on 6 April 2025. Given that the complaint that formed the subject of this ruling was received before 7 April 2025, the ASA considered the ad(s) and complaint under the wording of the rules that existed prior to 7 April 2025, and the Ruling (and references to rules within it) should therefore be read in line with this wording, available here – CAP Code and BCAP Code.
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
Two paid-for Meta ads for Arrae, a food supplement company, seen in February 2025:
a. The first ad included the text “Meet MB-1 by Arrae, your all-natural Faux-Zempic!” in the caption. Other text stated, “Only 12% of Americans are metabolically fit. Arrae MB-1 provides comprehensize [sic] metabolic support by activating AMPK and key enzymes to support weight management, craving control, blood sugar + cholesterol regulation, & more”. Small print stated, “This statement has been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. This product is not a treatment for obesity, type 2 diabetes or other metabolic diseases”.
b. The second ad included the text “Meet MB-1 by Arrae, your all-natural Faux-Zempic!” in the caption. In a video a woman called the product “nature’s faux-zempic” and “a clinically backed supplement with seven natural ingredients that work with your body to reduce stubborn body fat, supercharge your metabolism and curb cravings”. She also stated that, “it helped quiet food noise for me”. A second woman said, “I was able to achieve my goal weight in three months […] Weight management has never been easier. Like these jeans used to be so tight on me and now look”, pointing to a loose waistband.
Issue
The ASA challenged whether:
- the ads implied that the products had the same medicinal effects as GLP-1 agonist medications such as Ozempic;
- the specific health claims were authorised on the Great Britain nutrition and health claims register (GB Register); and
- ad (b) included a health claim that referred to a rate or amount of weight loss.
Response
Arrae Inc did not respond to the ASA’s enquiries.
Assessment
The ASA was concerned by Arrae Inc’s lack of response and apparent disregard for the Code, which was a breach of CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.7 (Unreasonable delay). We reminded them of their responsibility to respond promptly to our enquiries and told them to do so in future.
1. Upheld
The CAP Code stated that claims which stated or implied a food could prevent, treat or cure human disease were prohibited for foods, including food supplements. It also stated that medicinal claims may be made for a medicinal product that was authorised by the MHRA or under the auspices of the EMA. Medicines must have an authorisation from the MHRA or under the auspices of the EMA before they were marketed.
The ASA considered that consumers were likely to understand the references in the ads to “faux-zempic” to mean the product was equivalent to or had similar effects to Ozempic (semaglutide), a GLP-1 agonist injection, which was a prescription-only medicine (POM) used for weight loss. In the context of claims relating to Ozempic, we considered that product claims to reduce hunger or cravings would also be understood as medicinal by presentation.
We considered the following claims implied that the product had the same weight-loss effects as the POM Ozempic, and were therefore medicinal claims: “Meet MB-1 by Arrae, your all-natural Faux-Zempic!” and “Arrae MB-1 provides comprehensize [sic] metabolic support by activating AMPK and key enzymes to support […] craving control, blood sugar + cholesterol regulation” in ad (a); and “Meet MB-1 by Arrae, your all-natural Faux-Zempic”, “nature’s faux-zempic”, “a clinically backed supplement with seven natural ingredients that work with your body to […] curb cravings” and “it helped quiet food noise” in ad (b).
We also reviewed the claims “support weight management” in ad (a) and “reduce stubborn body fat” in ad (b). We considered that in the context of ads that used the term “Faux-Zempic” to describe the product and consequentially made a comparison with POMs used for weight loss, those claims were also medicinal claims.
The claims implied that the product, which was marketed as a food supplement, had medicinal properties. We understood that such claims were, for the purposes of the legislation reflected in the Code, prohibited claims that a food could prevent, treat or cure human disease. Additionally, because the ad made medicinal claims for the product, it was defined as a medicinal product by presentation for the purposes of the medicines legislation reflected in the Code. However, we had not seen evidence that the advertiser held the necessary authorisation.
Because the ads implied that a food supplement could prevent, treat or cure human disease, and featured claims that a product had medicinal properties without the necessary authorisation, we concluded that they breached the Code.
On that point, ads (a) and (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 12.1, 12.11 (Medicines, medical devices health-related products and beauty products), 15.6 and 15.6.2 (Food, food supplements and associated health or nutrition claims).
2. Upheld
The CAP Code further required that health claims were only permitted in marketing communications for food or food supplements if they were authorised on the GB Register. Health claims were claims that stated, suggested or implied a relationship between a food or ingredient, and health. Any authorised health claims made in an ad must meet the associated conditions of use.
Ad (b) included the claim “supercharge your metabolism”, which we considered would be understood as meaning that the product had a beneficial effect on the metabolic system. It was therefore a specific health claim for the purposes of the Code.
Additionally, as referenced above, we considered that in the context of the ads’ references to “Faux-Zempic”, which suggested an equivalence to Ozempic, the claims “support weight management” in ad (a) and “reduce stubborn body fat” in ad (b) would be understood by consumers as claims that the product could prevent, treat or cure human disease.
We considered that if those claims had been presented in isolation, absent of the wider context of equivalence to Ozempic, they would be understood as specific health claims that the product could support weight management and reduce body fat.
However, we had not seen any evidence which demonstrated that any of the specific health claims were authorised on the GB Register in relation to the product or any of its ingredients. Therefore, we concluded that those claims breached the Code.
On that point, ads (a) and (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 15.1, 15.1.1, and 15.7 (Food, food supplements and associated health or nutrition claims).
3. Upheld
The CAP Code stated that health claims that referred to a rate or amount of weight loss were not acceptable when made in relation to a food supplement.
We considered that consumers would understand from the claims in ad (b) “I was able to achieve my goal weight in three months” and “these jeans used to be so tight on me and now look”, in conjunction with the accompanying visual which showed a loose waistband, that by using the food supplement they would reduce their weight by a definite amount in a specific timeframe. We therefore considered that the ad referred to a rate of weight loss in relation to a supplement and concluded that it breached the Code.
On that point, ad (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 15.6 and 15.6.6 (Food, food supplements and associated health or nutrition claims).
Action
The ads must not appear again in the form investigated. We told Arrae Inc not to claim that a food supplement could prevent, treat or cure human disease, or make medicinal claims for a product that did not have the necessary authorisation. That included that they must not state, or imply, that a food supplement was equivalent to or had similar effects to prescription-only medicines used for weight loss, such as Ozempic. We told them not to make specific health claims unless they were authorised on the GB Register. We also told them not to refer to a rate or amount of weight loss for a food supplement. We referred the matter to CAP’s Compliance team.
