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.
Ad description
An Instagram post by John Fisher (itsbigjohn1) for GDK Romford, posted on 13 January 2026. Mr Fisher was shown at the front of a store and in the voice-over he stated, “A brand new store, German Doner Kebab, bang in the heart of Romford. Let’s go and have a look”. He went to the counter and ordered an “Inferno OG chicken” with salads and sauces. He then ordered “a rice bowl with chicken”, and a “doner burrito”. Footage showed the menu items being prepared. He then sat down in the restaurant and tasted all three items. As he unwrapped the burrito he said, “Chicken doner burrito look at that”. As he left the restaurant he said, “And I forgot the most important thing: tomorrow is a giveaway. 11am until 1pm, German Doner Kebab here in Romford are giving away 100 free Junior OG kebabs.”The caption on the ad stated, “@GermanDonerKebabUK has landed in the hometown with a BOSH. Plus, GDK Romford will be giving away 100 FREE OG JR Kebab tomorrow from 11AM-1PM. First come, first served so be quick. #GDKRomford #BurritoBosh Ad”.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the ad was a paid ad for an identifiable less healthy food product placed on the internet.
Response
GDK International Ltd, t/a German Doner Kebab, or GDK, confirmed that Mr Fisher’s post was a paid ad, the placement of which was arranged through their marketing agency.
GDK said they intended the ad to highlight a selection of menu items that were not high in fat salt or sugar (HFSS). When planning the ad’s content with the agency they had provided a list of menu items that Mr Fisher could and could not choose, based on whether they were HFSS. The four items referenced in the ad were on the list of items that were not HFSS.
GDK provided nutrient profile calculations for the options chosen by Mr Fisher which confirmed that the four items – the Inferno OG chicken, the Rice Bowl with Chicken, the chicken Doner Burrito and the Junior OG Kebab – were not HFSS foods.
Mr Fisher’s management agency said that they were told by GDK that all the menu items ordered in the ad were not HFSS.
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 ASA noted that GDK had paid for the ad to be placed on the internet by John Fisher.
The ad promoted the opening of a new GDK restaurant in Romford and showed Mr Fisher ordering and tasting three items from the menu: an Inferno OG chicken Kebab, a Rice Bowl with chicken and a chicken Doner Burrito. The items were shown being prepared in the restaurant and Mr Fisher also highlighted an offer of 100 free Junior OG Kebabs available to customers the next day. A can of Diet Coke was visible while Mr Fisher was tasting the food. The ad did not show any other menu item in preparation, on a menu or visible in the restaurant.
Given the ad’s primary focus on the three items ordered, we considered that consumers who viewed the ad could reasonably be expected to identify that the ad was for those menu items. Because the ad also highlighted the promotional offer for the Junior OG Kebab we considered consumers could also reasonably be expected to identify that the ad was also for that item.
We assessed whether the four products that were identifiable in the ad – the Inferno OG chicken Kebab, the Rice Bowl with chicken, the chicken Doner Burrito and the Junior OG Kebab – were “less healthy” foods.
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.
The information provided by GDK showed that the three foods ordered by Mr Fisher, and the Junior OG Kebab, were not HFSS. Therefore, ads for those four menu items were not restricted by the “less healthy” food rule.
We also considered whether consumers who viewed the ad could reasonably expected to identify that the ad was also for Diet Coke. The can was visible while Mr Fisher was tasting the three products, but was at the edge of the frame, and was in and out of shot as the camera moved. It was not referenced by Mr Fisher and was shown only when viewers’ attention would be directed to the visuals of Mr Fisher tasting the menu items and on his commentary. We considered its appearance was incidental and consumers could not reasonably be expected to identify that the ad was for Diet Coke. We also understood that Diet Coke was not a less healthy product.
We concluded consumers could reasonably be expected to identify that the ad was for four menu items which were not less healthy foods. The ad therefore was not for an identifiable less healthy product or products. It fell outside the scope of CAP Code rule 15.19 and did not breach the Code.
We investigated the ad under CAP Code rule 15.19 (Place of less healthy food and drink product advertisements online), but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action required.
