Background
This ruling forms part of a wider piece of work on prescription-only medicines (POMs) used for weight loss. The ad was identified for investigation following intelligence gathering 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 9 July 2025, 17 December 2025, 11 February 2026, 18 February 2026 and 8 April 2026.
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A paid-for Facebook ad, jointly published by The Ryan Family (Theryanfamily__) and Juniper UK, an online pharmacy, seen on 30 October 2025.
The caption stated, “I probably needed a hug, but I decided to start a medicated weightloss [sic] journey with Juniper instead and I really didn’t expect it to bring so much more than progress on the scales. For me it’s about my confidence returning, the energy I thought I’d lost and a reminder that showing up for myself was always worth it”.
Further text stated, “ad - my code KELSEY will give you discount x” and included the hashtags “#weightlossstory #weightlossjourney #weightlossprogress #4stonedown #juniper”.
The video showed various clips of a woman looking after her baby, walking with a pram, posing for a picture and standing in a locker room holding a protein shake bottle.
Issue
The ASA challenged weather the ad:
- suggested that new mothers should prioritise weight loss after birth which exploited their insecurities around body image and was therefore irresponsible; and
- breached the Code because it promoted POMs to the public.
Response
1. Juniper Technologies UK Ltd t/a Juniper said they disagreed that the ad encouraged new mothers to prioritise weight loss. They said the intended message of the ad was not that weight loss should take precedence over motherhood, but that mothers could seek a balance that felt right for them.
They highlighted the line “it’s about my confidence returning, the energy I thought I’d lost and a reminder that showing up for myself was always worth it”, which they said was the focus of the ad. They said the claim “I probably needed a hug, but I decided to start a medicated weightloss journey with Juniper instead” was intended to show that the woman chose a form of self-care that suited her. They said the video featured imagery of the woman with her baby and taking part in activities that were meaningful to her.
However, they said they acknowledged new mothers were vulnerable to content relating to body image and had withdrawn the ad as a precaution.
The Ryan Family said the content was made to reflect Kelsey’s personal lived experience and her own health journey, and was not designed to encourage new mothers to prioritise weight loss after giving birth.
She said the ad did not suggest a timeframe, and that her child was over 18 months old at the time the content was posted. She said her followers would have been familiar with her family, weight loss and lifestyle situation.
However, she also said that she recognised that motherhood and weight loss was a sensitive topic, and could see how the wording could have been interpreted as resonating with vulnerabilities some new mothers may experience, and had removed the post.
2. Juniper said that when consumers clicked through from the Facebook ad, they were taken to an initial webpage with two options: “I’m new to weight loss medication” and “I’m using weight loss medication”. They said they considered that page to operate like a homepage. They referred to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) Blue Guide and said they understood that homepages should not expose “casual browsers” to specific POM references. They believed the initial webpage, linked to from the ad, was therefore compliant with the CAP Code, as it did not provide any specific POM information or advertising.
They said they only shared more specific information about their offering once consumers chose to click through from that page. They said consumers who did so were no longer “casual browsers”, but had shown an interest in learning more about weight-loss medication, in the context of their own level of experience (new or existing users).
They said they interpreted the Blue Guide to mean that further webpages about a condition, which consumers choose to access, could provide more specific information in a fair and balanced way.
The Ryan Family said their role in the collaboration was limited to sharing Kelsey’s personal experience of using Juniper’s service and signposting followers to Juniper UK’s platform. They said the ad itself did not contain any named POMs and that they did not create, control or design the landing page content, including the images of Wegovy or Mounjaro injection pens, which were managed by Juniper.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The CAP Code required that marketing communications must be prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society and should not include gender stereotypes that were likely to cause harm, or serious or widespread offence.
The ASA acknowledged that women may already be body conscious because of pre-existing societal pressure and that any concerns and anxieties about their weight were likely to have been heightened after giving birth.
The ad was on a public account, which anyone could view, and we considered that some users who saw the ad may not have been aware of the baby’s age or of Kelsey’s (The Ryan Family) personal history.
The ad featured scenes of a new mother with a newborn baby as well as scenes when the baby was slightly older.
We considered that in the context of an ad that focused on motherhood and which featured scenes of a new mother and her newborn baby, viewers were likely to interpret the statement “I probably needed a hug, but I decided to start a medicated weightloss [sic] journey with Juniper instead” as meaning the new mum had been struggling after having a baby, but had chosen to start a medicated weight-loss programme rather than seek support for how she felt emotionally. We considered the ad therefore presented the medicated weight-loss programme as an alternative to seeking emotional care and support, and suggested that emotional well-being could be achieved by losing weight, particularly after giving birth.
We sought advice from the MHRA. They expressed concern that the ad might not have supported rational use, because it included phrases such as “I probably needed a hug, but I decided to start a medicated weightloss [sic]”. The MHRA said the appropriate management of a condition should be considered jointly by the prescriber and patient, particularly given the safety considerations associated with these medicinal products for new mothers.
We also considered the ad, which encouraged new mothers to prioritise losing weight using weight-loss medication, that we understood carried safety warnings for people who were breast-feeding; exploited their insecurities about body image; and perpetuated pressure for them to conform to body image stereotypes. For those reasons, we concluded the ad was irresponsible, as it included a harmful gender stereotype and therefore breached the Code.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 1.3 (Social Responsibility) and 4.9 (Harm and Offence).
2. Upheld
The CAP Code stated that POMs or prescription-only medical treatments must not be advertised to the public.
The ASA understood that Chapter seven of the MHRA’s The Blue Guide stated that a website home page should focus on medical conditions and the service the website provided, and not include any reference to named POMs. It said that links and navigation aids may be given for particular conditions and diseases, but not be specific to POMs. The guidance said that further pages about the condition, which consumers chose to access, may contain non-promotional information on specific medicines provided that was presented in the context of a fair overview of the treatment options.
We sought advice from the MHRA. They expressed concern that the proactive provision of a direct link to a webpage or landing page that did not require any searching from the consumer to access that information (i.e., Wegovy and Mounjaro) could be analogous to that of a website homepage. MHRA guidance for providers that offered medicinal treatment services outlined that homepages should focus on medical conditions and the service provided and should not include any reference to named POMs.
We understood that landing pages from paid-for ads on social media were akin to a homepage, for the purposes of the MHRA’s Blue Guide. We acknowledged that the ad clicked through to an initial webpage with two options “I’m new to weight loss medication” and “I’m using weight loss medication”.
We considered that a page which simply asked consumers to select whether they were new to weight-loss medication, or already used it, was not a landing page. Instead, we considered it was a filtering page that directed consumers to a landing page akin to a homepage, based on their current usage of weight-loss medication.
However, the landing page after selecting the “new to weight loss” option featured a an image of a Wegovy branded injection pen device. Below were two product listings for Wegovy Injections and Mounjaro Injections. Both listings featured a thumbnail image of the respective injection pen devices.
We considered that a consumer who had clicked on the ad and selected that they were “new to weight loss medication” had not sought out further information about a condition, and were actively presented with Wegovy and Mounjaro Injections, both of which were POM options. We therefore considered that the landing page linked to from the ad, via a filtering page, referenced POMs.
We considered that a filter page which simply asked consumers to select whether they were new to weight-loss medication, or already used it, was not a landing page akin to a homepage. Instead, we considered it was a filtering page that directed consumers to a landing page, based on their current usage of weight-loss medication.
For those reasons, we considered the ad promoted POMs to the public and concluded that it breached the Code.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 12.12 (Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Juniper Technologies UK Ltd t/a Juniper to ensure their future advertising was prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and society and did not include gender stereotypes that were likely to cause harm or serious or widespread offence. We also told them not to promote POMs to the public in future.
