Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A paid-for Facebook ad and a website for Home + Health, seen on 8 July 2026.
a. The paid-for Facebook ad featured text that stated “Most people don’t realise their dishwasher detergent could be doing more harm than good… We’ve tested and ranked the Top 5 Non-Toxic Dishwasher Detergents that clean powerfully without the hidden nasties. Tap below to see which ones made the cut”. The ad featured an image of a dishwasher in a kitchen and pack shots of five different branded dishwasher tablet products and text that stated, “WE TESTED 5 NON-TOXIC DISHWASHER TABLETS 2026 UPDATE”. Underneath the image was text that stated, “Discover the Top 5 Non-Toxic Dishwasher Detergent for a Healthier Home Find out which 5 non-toxic dishwasher options are the safest and most effective for your home” and a button labelled “See details” that linked to the landing page in ad (b).
b. The landing page featured a header that included the Home + Health logo. Underneath this, text stated “Product Reviews > Home & Garden > Detergent”. The page was presented as a review and comparison article for non-toxic dishwasher tablets headed “5 Best Non-Toxic Dishwasher Tablets That Actually Work … BY GABRIELA SMITH … TESTED BY SARAH DAVIS PRODUCT TESTING MANAGER”.
In a section headed “What’s Really in Your Dishwasher Tablets?” text stated, “If you’re using big-name dishwasher brands, you could be washing your plates, glasses and cutlery in a chemical cocktail…”. The next section was headed “How These Chemicals Impact Your Health” and included text that stated “Because dishwasher tablets touch everything you eat and drink from, you risk ingesting chemical residues with every bite… Over time, this daily exposure can lead to: Gut Barrier Damage – Ingredients like alcohol ethoxylates may weaken the gut lining, contributing to leaky gut and inflammation. Respiratory Issues - Inhaling fumes from tablets can irritate lungs and worsen asthma or other breathing conditions. Allergies & Sensitivities - Preservatives and dyes can trigger rashes, sneezing, headaches, and skin flare-ups. Toxic Load Build-Up - These chemicals add to your body’s overall toxic burden, making natural detox harder. Reproductive Issues - Hormone disruptors like phthalates have been linked to lower fertility and hormone imbalances. Increased Cancer Risk - Carcinogens like 1,4-dioxane and DEA are still found in some mainstream dishwasher detergents”.
Further down the page text stated, “Choosing effective “non-toxic” dishwasher tablets isn’t easy with so many out there - so how can you tell what’s worthwhile?”. Under this was a section headed “How We Tested” that stated, “Our team of researchers and expert product testers put 15 of the most popular non-toxic dishwasher tablets through rigorous testing” and listed five different tests. The text continued “After meticulous research and real-world stain tests, we narrowed it down to the top 5 best-performing dishwasher tablets - the ones that are truly non-toxic and actually work”. The page then listed five different branded products in ranked order, labelled one to five. Each entry included a product image, a score out of 100, a short review-style assessment, and a bullet-pointed list of pros and cons. Each entry also included a link to the relevant brand’s website where the product could be purchased. In the case of the top-rated product, “Dip Dishwasher Sheets”, buttons also appeared in the header and at the bottom of the landing page, labelled “Shop #1 Pick”. These buttons linked to Dip’s website. A further section headed “Why Our Team Choose Dip as The #1 Pick” reiterated the reasons the product was chosen.
Smaller text in the footer of the landing page stated, “Disclaimer: This is an advertorial, while we believe the information provided is accurate to the best of our knowledge, it is not an actual news article, blog or consumer protection report”.
Issue
1. The complainant, who understood that the landing page contained affiliate content, challenged whether the ads were obviously identifiable as such and made their commercial intent clear.
2. The complainant challenged whether the claims about the impact of dishwasher tablet residue on gut health in ad (b) were misleading and could be substantiated.
3. The ASA challenged whether the claims in ad (b) about the impact of dishwasher tablet residue on respiratory issues, allergies, toxic load build-up, hormone imbalances, reproductive issues and increased cancer risk, were misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
1. Cara Capsules Ltd t/a Home + Health confirmed that they owned both the website and the brand, Dip, and that the article on the landing page had been published to promote Dip. They said they did not have any commercial relationship with any of the other brands featured in the article and that the links to their websites were ordinary links rather than affiliate links. They said that consumers were directed to the landing page via paid Meta ads labelled “Ad” and the landing page had included a disclaimer expressly identifying it as an advertorial. Nonetheless, they accepted that the disclaimer’s position at the bottom of the page meant that the commercial intent may not have been clear to consumers from the outset, and they said that future content of this kind would carry a prominent label to make clear that it was an advertisement feature by Dip.
2. & 3. Home + Health said they had reviewed the evidence available to them and withdrawn the health-related claims in ad (b) and would not use them again in the form complained of. They told us they would ensure any future comparisons with identifiable competitors complied with the Code.
They said that both the paid-for Facebook ad and the landing page had been taken down on 28 August, along with any other materially similar ads. They told us that they had put a new pre-publication approval process in place to ensure future ads complied with the Code.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The CAP Code stated that marketing communications must be obviously identifiable as such. It also stated that marketing communications must not falsely claim or imply that the marketer was acting as a consumer or for purposes outside its trade, business, craft or profession, and must make clear the marketer’s commercial intent, if that was not apparent from the context.
Ad (a), which featured the Home + Health logo, invited consumers to tap to see which non-toxic dishwasher detergents “made the cut” and included images of five different dishwasher detergent brands, one of which was Dip. The ad linked to ad (b), which also appeared under the Home + Health logo and was presented as a review article.
The landing page (ad (b)) included the text “Product Reviews > Home & Garden > Detergent”, bylines for “Gabriela Smith” and “Sarah Davis Product Testing Manager”, and claims that the team had tested 15 products, along with numerical scores, and pros and cons for the products featured. The ASA considered consumers would understand from the presentation of ads (a) and (b) that Home + Health was an independent review site offering impartial product testing and recommendations.
However, we understood that Home + Health owned both the website and Dip, the product that was ranked in first place, and that the article had been published to promote Dip. We acknowledged that the paid-for Facebook ad was labelled “Ad”, but we considered that consumers would understand that label as indicating only that ad (a) was a paid-for ad, and that it did not make clear that the apparent review site the ad linked to was itself marketing content, or that it was owned by the marketer of Dip.
We acknowledged that ad (b) did not include affiliate links for the featured products. However, we considered that the absence of affiliate links did not alter the commercial nature of the content, because the page was owned by the marketer of Dip and had been published to promote that product. We noted that the landing page included text in the footer that stated “Disclaimer: This is an advertorial […]”. However, we considered that disclaimer was insufficient because it only appeared in smaller text at the bottom of the page, where consumers were unlikely to see it until they had already engaged with the content. We therefore considered that the page was not clearly labelled upfront as an advertisement feature for Dip.
Because the ads presented Home + Health as an independent review and comparison site, when in fact the page was a marketing communication created to promote Dip, we concluded the ads were not obviously identifiable as marketing communications, did not make their commercial intent clear, and falsely implied that Home + Health was acting for purposes outside its business.
On that point, ads (a) and (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 2.1, 2.3, 2.4 (Recognition of marketing communications).
2. & 3. Upheld
Ad (b) stated that if consumers were using “big-name dishwasher brands”, they could be washing their plates, glasses and cutlery in “a chemical cocktail”. It also stated that because dishwasher tablets touched everything consumers ate and drank from, they risked ingesting chemical residues “with every bite”. The ad then stated that, over time, daily exposure could lead to “Gut Barrier Damage”, “Respiratory Issues”, “Allergies & Sensitivities”, “Toxic Load Build-Up”, “Reproductive Issues” and “Increased Cancer Risk”. It also referred to “Hormone disruptors like phthalates” being linked to “lower fertility and hormone imbalances”. The ad then went on to present a ranked review of five branded dishwasher tablet products that were described as non-toxic and claimed that its recommendations were based on “rigorous testing” that included cleaning performance, health and safety, ease of use, eco-friendliness and value for money.
We considered that consumers would understand the ad to be making comparative claims about the toxicity and health risks associated with mainstream dishwasher tablets and that the products featured in the ranking were safer, non-toxic alternatives. In particular, consumers would understand the ad to mean that, unlike the featured products, residue from mainstream dishwasher tablets remained on items used for eating and drinking, that consumers would ingest that residue, and that doing so could cause or contribute to the range of adverse health effects listed in the ad, namely gut barrier damage, respiratory issues, allergies and sensitivities, toxic load build-up, reproductive issues, increased cancer risk and hormone imbalances.
We expected Cara Capsules to hold evidence to substantiate both the health claims and the comparative basis of the claims made. However, Cara Capsules had not provided us with any evidence. We welcomed Cara Capsule’s willingness to amend their advertising. However, because we had not seen evidence to substantiate the claims about the impact of standard dishwasher tablet residue on gut health, respiratory issues, allergies, toxic load build-up, hormone imbalances, reproductive issues and increased cancer risk, or the comparison between the “non-toxic” dishwasher tablets featured in the ad and “big-name dishwasher tablets”, we concluded that the health-related and comparative claims were misleading and had not been substantiated.
On those points, ad (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 3.32 (Comparisons with identifiable competitors).
Action
The ads must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Cara Capsules Ltd t/a Home + Health not to claim that using standard dishwasher tablets was harmful to humans or make comparative claims about the toxicity or health and safety of dishwasher tablets, without adequate substantiation. We also told them to ensure their ads were obviously identifiable as marketing communications, made their commercial intent clear and did not falsely imply they were acting for purposes outside of their trade.
