Background
On 5 January 2026, new rules in the CAP and BCAP Codes on the advertising of “less healthy” food and drink products came into force.
The rules were supported by additional guidance, “Advertising of less healthy food and drink products”, which set out various tests and exemptions relevant to the ASA’s approach to assessing individual ads under the relevant Code rules.
The rules and guidance reflected the requirements of the Communications Act 2003, The Advertising (Less Healthy Food Definitions and Exemptions) Regulations 2024, and The Advertising (Less Healthy Food and Drink) (Brand Advertising Exemption) Regulations 2025.
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A TV ad, Video on Demand (VOD) ad and a paid-for YouTube ad for Domino’s Cheeky Little Pizza offer.
a. The TV ad, seen at around 7.45 pm on 6 January 2026, began with a close-up shot of a meat pizza with a slice being lifted away, before a second pizza with vegetable toppings was shown. The voice-over stated, “Domino’s for just four quid? Yep, cheeky little pizzas at a cheeky little price.” Large on-screen text stated “JUST £4”, and then “CHEEKY LITTLE PIZZAS ” and “UNDER 600KCAL”.
b. The VOD ad, seen between 9 am and 9 pm on 5 to 16 January 2026 on ITVX, Channel Four, UKTV and Prime Video on-demand programming services, was the same as ad (a).
c. The ad seen on the YouTube app on 11 January 2026 featured an image of a meat pizza cut into four slices. Text on the image stated “£4 LUNCH ORDER AHEAD ON OUR APP” and “Cheeky Little Pizza”. Text underneath the image stated “Domino’s does lunch. Order from our £4 lunch menu on our app for an easy, speedy pick up on the go.”
Issue
The ASA received eight complaints.
1. One complainant challenged whether ad (c) was a paid ad for an identifiable less healthy food product placed on the internet.
2. One complainant challenged whether ad (a) was for an identifiable less healthy food product and was included in television programme services between 5.30 am and 9 pm.
3. Six complainants challenged whether ad (b) was for an identifiable less healthy food product and was included in a regulated on-demand programme service between 5.30 am and 9 pm.
Response
Domino’s Pizza UK & Ireland Ltd t/a Domino’s was responsible for responding in relation to the ad placed on the internet, ad (c).
Clearcast (the clearance centre for TV ads) was responsible for responding in relation to the TV ad (a).
The operators of the on-demand programme services (ODPS) on which ad (b) was seen were responsible for responding in relation to the ad’s inclusion in each of their services.
1. Domino’s confirmed they had created ads (a), (b) and (c) for their ‘Cheeky Little Pizza’ range and paid to place ad (c) on the internet. They said the range was designed to provide a lower-calorie option made with reduced-fat cheese. The meat-topped pizza featured in the ads was the Sausage and Bacon flavour variant.
Domino’s said that across their whole range of pizzas, some were classified as high in fat, salt or sugar (HFSS). They relied on a third party to provide them with a nutrient profile for each pizza, which they had used when preparing the ads. Based on that information, the Sausage and Bacon pizza scored three in the nutrient profile calculation set out in the Department of Health and Social Care’s Nutrient Profiling Technical Guidance, and was therefore a non-HFSS pizza. However, since being contacted by the ASA they had realised that the figure for energy used in that calculation was incorrect.
Domino’s confirmed that the correct figure for energy meant that the Sausage and Bacon pizza was in fact an HFSS product.
As soon as they were made aware of the complaints, Domino’s withdrew all advertising that included the Sausage and Bacon “Cheeky Little Pizza”. They were committed to ensuring compliance with the “less healthy” food and drink rules and had reviewed their nutritional assessment processes to ensure the validity of the data in nutrient profile calculations going forward.
2. Clearcast said that the “Cheeky Little Pizza” range included five pizzas. Ad (a) featured two visible pizzas, the Sausage and Bacon and Vegi Classic variants. They had asked Domino’s to provide nutrient profile calculations for both pizzas. The information they received showed that both products were non-HFSS. Therefore they understood the two pizzas were not “less healthy” foods. Clearcast said they were subsequently told that the nutrient profile calculations for one of the products in the ad was incorrect. Had this been known at the time of clearance, they would have applied the scheduling restriction for “less healthy” foods.
3. Channel Four Television Corporation t/a Channel Four said ad (b) was identical to that aired on TV, and they pre-cleared ODPS ads with Clearcast. They understood that Clearcast was provided with incorrect nutrient profile information in the clearance process, which meant the pizzas were classified as non ”less healthy” foods. The ad was therefore cleared to run outside of the “less healthy” food restrictions, and Channel Four had therefore run the ad before 9 pm in good faith.
ITV Broadcasting Ltd t/a ITVX also used Clearcast to clear ads shown on their on-demand programme services. They understood ad (b) was cleared on the basis that Domino’s had provided evidence the two pizzas were non-HFSS. When they were informed of the complaint and that the nutrient profile information was incorrect, ITV amended the ad’s scheduling restriction to comply with the rules for ads for “less healthy” foods.
UKTV Media Ltd t/a UKTV said that Channel Four sold ad space on UKTV on their behalf, and so had scheduled ad (b) for them. They showed the ad before 9 pm in line with the restriction applied by Clearcast.
Amazon Europe Core Sarl t/a Amazon Prime said ad (b) was placed directly by Domino’s using their self-serve tool to book and submit ad campaigns to Amazon Prime and that advertisers must select scheduling restrictions for their ads. That did not happen for ad (b), and they were not given information regarding whether the products shown were HFSS. Amazon said their standard safeguards included moderating all self-served ads, but in the absence of the correct information from Domino’s, their moderator did not identify it as an HFSS ad. Following receipt of the complaint, they had provided additional training to their in-house team.
Assessment
1. 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 ASA noted Domino’s had confirmed they paid to place ad (c) on the internet.
The test determining whether an ad was covered by the restrictions was set out in law, as reflected in Code rule 15.19. A “less healthy” product was “identifiable”, in relation to ads, if persons in the UK could reasonably be expected to be able to identify the ad as being for that product.
Given the ad’s reference to “£4 Lunch”, “Cheeky Little Pizza” and “Domino’s does lunch. Order from our £4 lunch menu” we considered consumers could reasonably be expected to identify that the ad was for the “Cheeky Little Pizza” range. They would therefore identify that the ad was for all the pizzas in that range, including the specific pizza that was depicted in the ad and including pizzas in the range that were less healthy foods.
We noted that brand advertisements (those that promoted a brand, including the brand of a range of products), were exempt from the restrictions in rule 15.19, subject to certain provisions. For example, an ad that depicted a specific less healthy product was not a brand advertisement. An ad that included a realistic image of a food or drink itself, out of packaging, where that food or drink was visually indistinguishable from a specific less healthy food or drink product, was also not a brand advertisement. A “specific” product was a product that was differentiated from other products, unless it was only differentiated by pack size or packaging format.
The ASA must therefore consider which of the following scenarios applied to ad (c):
1. An ad which depicted a specific “less healthy” pizza sold by Domino’s would be in breach of the “less healthy” food rule.
2. An ad which depicted a specific non “less healthy” pizza sold by Domino's, by clearly identifying it as that specific non “less healthy” pizza (for example, by stating its name), would not be in breach of the “less healthy” food rule.
3. If an ad featured a realistic image of a Domino’s pizza but did not identify which specific pizza it was, we must assess whether the pizza shown in the ad was visually indistinguishable from any specific “less healthy” pizza sold by Domino’s. That was the case whether the realistic image in the ad was of a “less healthy” pizza, or a non “less healthy” pizza. If it was visually indistinguishable from a “less healthy” pizza, the ad would be in breach of the “less healthy” food rule.
A food or drink was “less healthy” if it met two tests, set out in the rule. Firstly, it must be classified as HFSS according to the Department of Health and Social Care’s Nutrient Profiling Technical Guidance. Secondly, it must also fall within a food or drink category set out in law.
Pizzas fell within the “less healthy” food Category 11, described in law as “Pizza (except plain bases)”. While the ad did not state which flavour variant was shown in the ad, we understood it was the Sausage and Bacon “Cheeky Little Pizza”, which was classified as HFSS and therefore as “less healthy”. Therefore ad (c) depicted a specific “less healthy” pizza, and scenario 1, as referenced above, applied.
Because ad (c) was a paid ad placed on the internet which depicted a specific “less healthy” product – the Sausage and Bacon “Cheeky Little Pizza” – we concluded it breached the Code.
On that point, ad (c) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 15.19 (Placement of less healthy food and drink product advertisements online).
2. & 3. Upheld
The BCAP Code required that ads for an identifiable less healthy food or drink product must not be included in television programme services between 5.30 am and 9 pm. The CAP Code required that ads for an identifiable less healthy food or drink product must not be included in on-demand programme services between 5.30 am and 9 pm
Both the TV ad (a) and ODPS ad (b) were seen by complainants during the day, before 9 pm.
The test determining whether an ad was covered by the restrictions was set out in law, as reflected in BCAP Code rule 32.21, and CAP Code (Appendix 2) rule 30.16. As with paid ads on the internet, a less healthy product was “identifiable”, in relation to TV and VOD ads, if persons in the UK could reasonably be expected to be able to identify the ad as being for that product. Similarly, TV and ODPS brand advertisements were exempt from the restrictions in the rules, subject to the same provisions. The same definitions of a “less healthy” food also applied.
Ads (a) and (b) had exactly the same content and featured two different unnamed pizzas; one with meat slice toppings and one with vegetable toppings. Given the references in the ads to “Domino’s for just four quid? Yep, cheeky little pizzas at a cheeky little price” and the on-screen text “JUST £4”, we considered consumers could reasonably be expected to identify that the ads were for the range of Domino’s “Cheeky Little Pizzas”. They would therefore identify that the ad was for all the pizzas in that range, including the two specific pizzas depicted in the ad and including pizzas in the “Cheeky Little Pizza” range that were less healthy foods.
The ASA must therefore consider whether the brand exemption applied to ads (a) and (b), by determining which of the three scenarios set out above in point 1 applied.
As referenced above, pizzas fell within the “less healthy” food Category 11. While the ads did not state which flavour variants were depicted, we understood they were the Sausage and Bacon and Vegi Classic “Cheeky Little Pizzas”.
Because the Sausage and Bacon “Cheeky Little Pizza” was a “less healthy” food, scenario 1 also applied to ads (a) and (b); those ads also depicted a specific “less healthy” pizza sold by Domino’s.
We understood that the Vegi Classic, which was also depicted in both ads, was not HFSS and therefore scenario 1 did not apply to that pizza. However, we did not further assess whether scenarios 2 or 3 applied to the depiction of the Vegi Classic, because we had already determined that the ads breached the Code through their depiction of the “less healthy” Sausage and Bacon pizza.
We acknowledged that Clearcast had cleared ad (a) based on the nutrient profile information received from Domino’s and that as a result, the operators of the ODPS channels had aired ad (b) on the understanding that the pizzas shown in the ad were not less healthy foods. However, because the ads depicted a specific “less healthy” product – the Sausage and Bacon “Cheeky Little Pizza” – and were included in TV and on-demand programme services between 5.30 am and 9 pm, we concluded they breached the Code.
On point 2, ad (a) breached BCAP Code rule 32.21 (Scheduling of less healthy product advertisements).
On point 3, ad (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 30.16 (Advertising rules for on-demand services regulated by statute.)
Action
Ads (a) and (b) must not be included again in TV and on-demand programme services between 5.30 am and 9 pm, and ad (c) must not appear again in the form complained of.
We told Domino’s Pizza UK & Ireland Ltd t/a Domino’s to ensure that their paid ads on the internet were not for an identifiable “less healthy” food. We also told them to ensure they provided accurate nutrient profile information to Clearcast. .
We also told Channel Four Television Corporation t/a Channel Four, ITV Broadcasting Ltd, t/a ITVX, UKTV Media Ltd t/a UKTV and Amazon Europe Core Sarl t/a Amazon Prime to ensure they did not include ads for an identifiable “less healthy” product in on-demand programme services between 5.30 am and 9 pm.
