Ad description
A paid-for Instagram ad for a promotion by bubble tea company Bubbleology, seen on 27 January 2026.
The ad began with a shot of a poster with the text “Marvel Television. Wonder Man”, before switching to a woman holding a microphone, standing on a red carpet. She said, “It’s the night we have all been waiting for. The iconic collab between Bubbleology and Marvel Television’s Wonder Man has officially hit the red carpet. Which begs the question, what prizes are about to make a heroic entrance?” and described the prizes available. A shot then showed a Bubbleology-branded cup filled with a drink, and arrows pointing to “Peach Infused Green Tea”, “Gold Glitter” and “Bursting Boba”, before the woman said, “Well look who’s stealing the spotlight. Bubbleology’s limited edition drink inspired by Wonder Man”. She was shown holding up the drink and said, “Swing by Bubbleology and sip the star treatment.” A brief shot from Wonder Man was followed by the on-screen text “Marvel Television. Wonder Man” and then the Disney+ logo and strapline “A lifetime of great stories”.
The first line of the caption underneath the video stated, “CHANCE TO WIN THE ULTIMATE VIP”. Clicking on that text brought up the additional text “NIGHT OUT FOR TWO. Bubbleology has teamed up with Marvel Television’s Wonder Man to celebrate the series premiere on Disney+ from January 28th - and we’re giving you the chance to live your very own main-character moment… Here’s what’s up for grabs: Theatre tickets to a show of your choice. Dinner at a restaurant of your choice. One night’s stay in a luxury hotel. And of course… you’ll need a drink. Meet the Hollywood Shake - a peach-infused fruit tea with gold glitter and blueberry popping boba. Main-character energy only.” That was followed by information on how to enter, and the hashtags “#Bubbleology #DisneyMarvel #WonderMan #Giveaway #Competition”.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the ad was a paid ad for an identifiable less healthy food product placed on the internet.
Response
Bubbleology UK-I Ltd t/a Bubbleology said they were a small or medium-sized enterprise (SME) and were therefore exempt from the restrictions on the advertising of “less healthy” products. They said, based on January 2026 payroll data, the total employee count for their business and franchise network was 227. They provided payroll reports for their corporate and franchised locations.
Bubbleology acknowledged that under The Advertising (Less Healthy Food Definitions and Exemptions) Regulations 2024 (the Regulations) the relevant date for assessing their employee numbers would be 1 January 2026, which was the first day of their financial year. However, payroll data was recorded monthly and therefore the documents they supplied reflected all individuals paid during January, rather than only those employed on 1 January. They said, because they operated in the retail and hospitality sector, where staff turnover was high, the January payroll figures were likely to overstate the employee count by including staff who had joined, left, or worked only part of that month. They said a precise headcount for 1 January would have required significant manual reconciliation across multiple group and franchisee payroll systems.
With regard to the corporate group structure within which they operated, Bubbleology UK-I Ltd handled head office functions, including payroll, and was the only company for which employees were accounted. The remaining group entities did not employ staff. Bubbleology also provided details of other companies linked to their CEO that were not food and drink businesses.
Bubbleology confirmed that Bubbleology UK-I Ltd had paid for the ad. It had been created, managed and placed entirely by them and was distributed through their own social media channels. The paid Instagram placement was arranged and funded solely by Bubbleology. They supplied evidence that showed the daily budget and payment total for the boosted post, which ran between 27 January and 6 February 2026, along with invoices from Meta and a company credit card statement. They said no payment had been received from The Walt Disney Company Ltd (Disney) in connection with the placement of the ad.
Disney said they had not paid for the ad or controlled its placement. They said they did not benefit in any way from the sale of the advertised product, which was created, owned, controlled and sold by Bubbleology. They had granted Bubbleology a limited right to use certain Marvel material in connection with the Disney+ release of “Marvel Television’s Wonder Man”. That formed part of a limited promotional licensing arrangement under which Bubbleology was allowed to use the material in connection with a prize competition, which Bubbleology had funded and operated. Disney said Bubbleology was responsible for ensuring that the competition and related posts complied with applicable rules. Disney’s role was limited to licensing the Marvel material and reviewing references to it to ensure it was used correctly.
Assessment
Not upheld
The CAP Code required that persons must not pay for ads for an identifiable less healthy food or drink product to be placed on the internet.
The ad depicted a specific food or drink product, the Hollywood Shake. The ASA considered that consumers who viewed the ad could reasonably be expected to identify that the ad was for both a prize promotion and the Hollywood Shake product.
CAP Code rule 15.19 stated that the restriction did not apply where the person paying for the ad to be placed online was a food or drink small or medium enterprise (food or drink SME), namely an enterprise that employed fewer than 250 people across the relevant businesses, including as part of a franchise agreement. The Regulations further defined a food or drink SME as an enterprise that: during a financial year, carried on one or more businesses which involved or were associated with the manufacture or sale of food or drink; and that, on the first day of that financial year, employed fewer than 250 people for the purpose of those businesses, including international staff.
We first considered which company had paid to place the ad. The rule stated that payment for ads to be placed on the internet included the provision of any monetary or non-monetary consideration, as well as direct payment. We understood that Bubbleology had created the ad, published it on their own Instagram account and paid for its amplification. Bubbleology had therefore paid for the ad to be placed on the internet. They were responsible for the costs of the prize competition and for its administration. We understood Disney had licensed Marvel material for use in the promotion but did not benefit directly from the sale of the Hollywood Shake and had not made any payment for the ad’s creation or placement. We concluded Bubbleology was therefore solely responsible for the ad’s placement online for the purposes of Code rule 15.19.
We next assessed the employee numbers for Bubbleology to determine whether it fell within the definition of a food or drink SME. We understood that 1 January 2026, as the first day of the financial year in which the ads were paid for, was the appropriate date for assessing their headcount under the Regulations. We noted that Bubbleology had provided month-end figures instead and had explained the reasons for doing so. Given the proximity of those figures to the relevant assessment date, we considered them sufficiently reliable for the purpose of accurately determining the total number of employees. We considered that the staff employed by the franchise operations should be counted. The payroll reports showed that Bubbleology UK-I Ltd employed 123 people across its corporate stores and head office. Bubbleology said 104 further staff were employed across 13 UK and five non-UK franchised stores. The payroll reports detailed those employees, with the exception of one USA franchisee with five employees, which had not supplied payroll data. We understood that for certain non-UK franchise locations, employees working across more than one brand were processed under a single payroll system. In those cases, employees were included in the headcount based on their primary operational role and typical working pattern.
We understood that Bubbleology employed 227 people across its food and drink businesses at the end of January 2026. We concluded that, on balance, the evidence they had provided was sufficient to demonstrate that on the first day of the financial year in which Bubbleology UK-I Ltd paid for the ad to be placed, it employed fewer than 250 people for the purposes of those food and drink-associated businesses. We therefore considered that at that time Bubbleology was a food or drink SME for the purposes of the exemption. The ad therefore fell outside the scope of the rule and did not breach the Code.
We investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 15.19 (Placement of less healthy food and drink product advertisements online), but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action required.
