Background
This ruling forms part of a wider piece of work on autism and ADHD. The ad was identified for investigation following intelligence gathered by our Active Ad Monitoring system, which uses AI to proactively search for online ads that might break the rules. See also related rulings published on 10 December 2025.
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A paid-for Facebook ad for EllaOla, a supplements retailer, seen in June 2025, posted by the Facebook account “Pure Nutrition Mom”. The ad featured text that stated, “I tried over 20 vitamins for my daughter with autism… none worked […] But this? She has no idea she’s taking it! [...] In just a few months, I’ve seen the biggest changes: Fewer meltdowns. More energy & alertness. Even trying NEW foods!” with a blue tick seen alongside each claim. Further text stated, “Thank you, EllaOla - this is truly life-changing for sensory-sensitive kids”.
An accompanying video featured a testimonial from a mother explaining “Why moms who have children with autism love this vitamin…” accompanied by synchronized on-screen captions. The video showed a young girl experiencing signs of being overwhelmed and rejecting a plate of strawberries. The mother shared: "My daughter has autism, so she really only eats safe foods she likes: chicken nuggets, french fries, and mac and cheese […] My daughter also has a lot of meltdowns, throwing tantrums and all that stuff. Our paediatrician recommended us to take a multivitamin, since nutrient deficiencies can cause behavioural issues […] We’ve been using this for about a few months now, and the changes have been incredible. She’s even trying new foods like strawberries!" A pack shot of the EllaOla supplement appeared on screen.
Issue
The ASA challenged whether the:
- claims in the ad that stated or implied the supplement, or substances in it, could help prevent, treat or cure traits of autism, were in breach of the Code;
- ad included specific health claims and general health claims that breached the Code; and
- ad falsely implied that the marketer was acting for purposes outside its business and did not make clear their commercial intent.
Response
1., 2. & 3. EllaOla Brands Inc t/a EllaOla said that they had removed the ad and did not intend to use it again.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The CAP Code (which reflected legislation) stated that claims which stated or implied a food prevented, treated or cured human disease were not acceptable in marketing communications for foods, including food supplements. It also stated that medicinal claims may be made for a medicinal product that was licensed by the MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) or under the auspices of the EMA (European Medicines Agency). Medicines must have a license from the MHRA or under the auspices of the EMA before they were marketed.
The ad, presented as a mother’s testimonial, stated “I tried over 20 vitamins for my daughter with autism…none worked […] But this?” and listed benefits including “fewer meltdowns” and “Even trying NEW foods!”. The product was described as “life-changing for children with sensory sensitivities”. In the video, the mother explained her daughter’s limited diet and frequent meltdowns, adding that their paediatrician recommended trying a multivitamin due to links between nutrient deficiencies and behavioural issues. The ASA considered that consumers were likely to understand these claims to mean that the supplement could treat and help manage the traits of autism or autism spectrum disorder (ASD); particularly that it could reduce sensory sensitivities, including those relating to food.
Claims to relieve symptoms, or to cure, or to provide a remedy or heal a specific health condition or adverse condition of body or mind were regarded as medicinal claims. Given the context of the reference to autism or ASD, we considered the claims referenced above were medicinal claims, and implied that the product had medicinal properties.
The EllaOla Brands supplement was, in general terms, marketed as a food supplement. For the purposes of the legislation reflected in the Code, its prohibition on claims that a food (including food supplements), could prevent, treat, or cure symptoms of human disease included medicinal claims. We therefore concluded the claims to alleviate traits of autism or ASD fell under that prohibition. Additionally, because the ad made medicinal claims for the EllaOla Brands supplement, it was defined as a medicinal product for the purposes of medicines legislation. Claims that a product had medicinal properties may only be made for a medicinal product that was authorised by the MHRA or under the auspices of the EMA. We understood EllaOla Brands did not hold such authorisation for the supplement. We concluded the ad was therefore in breach of the Code’s requirements relating both to food supplements and to medicinal products.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 12.1 and 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 defined health claims as those that stated, suggested or implied a relationship between a food or ingredient, and health, and required that only health claims authorised on the applicable register, which in this case was the Great Britain nutrition and health claims register (the GB (NHC) Register), were permitted in marketing communications for foods. Some flexibility could be exercised in rewording authorised claims, provided that the reworded claim was likely to have the same meaning for consumers as the authorised claim. Marketers must also ensure that they met the conditions of use associated with the claims in question.
We understood that difficulties with energy and alertness were not traits specifically associated with autism or ASD. Therefore, we considered consumers would not interpret the claim “More energy and alertness” as suggesting treatment of traits related to the condition. Instead, we considered the claim “More energy & alertness” to be a specific health claim that would be understood as suggesting the product could enhance energy and alertness in children more broadly. However, EllaOla Brands had not provided evidence that there were any authorised claims on the GB (NHC) Register for the product, or its ingredients, which would have the same meaning for consumers as the claim in the ad. We therefore concluded that claim also breached the Code.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 15.1 and 15.1.1 (Food, food supplements and associated health or nutrition claims) and 15.7 (Food supplements and other vitamins and minerals).
3. Upheld
The CAP Code stated that marketing communications must not falsely claim or imply that the marketer was acting for purposes outside its trade or business and must make clear their commercial intent, if that was not apparent from the context.
The ad was a paid-for Facebook ad, and was therefore laid out with the advertiser’s name, “Pure Nutrition Mom”, at the top, with the word “Sponsored” underneath. Facebook users would therefore understand that it was an ad, paid for by an entity named Pure Nutrition Mom. It also included the URL of the EllaOla website, and a “Shop Now” button. For those reasons we considered consumers would understand there was a financial relationship between EllaOla Brands and a separate entity named Pure Nutrition Mom.
Based on the name “Pure Nutrition Mom” and the presentation of the content of the ad in a testimonial format and informal tone, we considered consumers were likely to understand that Pure Nutrition Mom was a Facebook page which generally posted impartial editorial content about nutrition for children, from the perspective of a mother. We noted that the “Intro” on the Pure Nutrition Mom Facebook page also gave that impression: “Helping parents navigate the complex world of children’s health & wellness by promoting healthier choices, reducing sugar intake, and offering tips & advice from Experts”. In that context, consumers were likely to understand that while there was a financial relationship between the two entities, Pure Nutrition Mom had retained editorial control over the content of the ad, and that it reflected their impartial editorial opinion of the product.
Aside from the “Intro”, the only content posted on the Pure Nutrition Mom Facebook page was a profile picture. However, the account had placed a large number of paid-for ads promoting EllaOla products. In the absence of any comment or evidence from EllaOla Brands to the contrary, we understood that the account was owned by EllaOla Brands.
We considered consumers were likely to understand that the ad was placed by a separate entity to EllaOla Brands and that its content was impartial editorial, when that was not the case. We concluded the ad falsely implied that the marketer, EllaOla Brands, was acting for purposes outside its trade or business, and that the ad did not make clear EllaOla Brands’ commercial intent. The ad therefore breached the Code.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 2.3 (Recognition of marketing communications).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form investigated. We told EllaOla Brands Inc t/a EllaOla to ensure their advertising did not make claims that food, including food supplements, could prevent, treat or cure conditions that, for the purposes of the Code, fell within the definition of human disease; specifically that they must not make claims that stated or implied a food supplement could help reduce traits of autism. We also told them not to make medicinal claims for products that were not authorised by the MHRA. We told them not to make health claims for foods or food supplements if they were not listed as authorised in the GB (NHC) Register. We told them to ensure their future ads did not falsely claim or imply that they were acting for purposes outside their trade or business and made clear their commercial intent.
CAP Code (Edition 12)
2.3 12.1 12.11 15.1 15.1.1 15.6 15.6.2 15.7
