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” (CAP’s Guidance), 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 Not upheld.
Ad description
A TV ad, Video On Demand (VOD) ad, and three paid-for social media ads for KFC:
a. The TV ad, seen between 9.00 am and 8.57 pm on 5 to 10 January 2026, featured on-screen text which stated “LET CHICKEN CONSUME YOU” and “THE DOUBLE DEAL”. Shots included breaded chicken being fried in oil, followed by a close-up shot of a table with two breaded chicken burgers, and two KFC-branded cups of a brown-coloured soft drink. One of the burgers and one of the drinks were held in peoples’ hands. The voice-over stated “The double deal for £5.99”, with on-screen text which stated “GET THE DEAL. BELIEVE IN CHICKEN”.
The ad was given restrictions by Clearcast indicating that it did not include a product high in fat, salt or sugar (HFSS), and did not fall under restrictions for ‘less healthy’ foods.
b. The Video On Demand (VOD) ad, seen at around 6.00 pm on 7 and 14 January 2026 on All4, featured the same content as ad (a).
c. The first paid-for social media ad, seen on Reddit on 18 January 2026 featured the caption “Succumb to the crumb. The Double Deal for £5.99. Get the Deal. Believe in Chicken.” A video began with large on-screen text which stated “THE DOUBLE DEAL”, followed by the same shot of the table with two breaded chicken burgers, and two KFC-branded cups of a brown-coloured soft drink as featured in ads (a) and (b). Further large on-screen text stated “£5.99”. The voice-over stated “The Double Deal, for £5.99. KFC.”
d. The second paid-for social media ad, seen on YouTube on 31 January and 2 February 2026, featured the same video as ad (c).
e. The third paid-for social media ad, seen on TikTok on 25 January 2026, featured the same video as ads (c) and (d). The caption displayed at the bottom of the video stated “Order the Double Deal for £5.99. Believe in …” followed by the word “more” that could be clicked to expand the caption.
Clicking on the caption brought up the text “Order the Double Deal for £5.99. Believe in chicken. Order the Double Deal for £5.99 Today! Looking for a delicious meal that won’t break the bank? The Double Deal is here just for you! For only £5.99 you can indulge in a mouthwatering array of chicken options that are sure to satisfy your cravings. Whether you’re eating on-the-go or enjoying a meal at home, our Double Deal has something for everyone. […] Treat yourself today by ordering the Double Deal and enjoy a delicious chicken meal without the hefty price tag […] Keywords: Double Deal £5.99, chicken meal deal, affordable chicken meals, fast food offers, buy one, get one chicken deal, meal specials UK, chicken lovers deal, delicious chicken offers, enjoy chicken meals cheap, best chicken deals”. Smaller text underneath stated “This is an AI-generated summary of the content, and is not intended to provide factual content. If you think it may contain an error, please report at: Feedback and help – TikTok”.
Issue
The ASA received 28 complaints.
1. One complainant saw ad (c), two saw ad (d) and one saw ad (e). Those complainants each challenged whether the ad they saw was a paid ad for an identifiable less healthy food product placed on the internet.
2. 22 complainants challenged whether ad (a) was for an identifiable less healthy food product and was included in television programme services between 5.30 am and 9.00 pm.
3. Two 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 9.00 pm.
Response
Kentucky Fried Chicken (Great Britain) Ltd (KFC), was responsible for responding in relation to the ads placed on the internet – ads (c), (d) and (e).
Clearcast (the clearance centre for TV ads) was responsible for responding in relation to the TV ad, ad (a).
Channel Four Television Corporation (Channel Four), who operated the on-demand programme service (ODPS) on which the Video on Demand (VOD) ad was seen, was responsible for responding in relation to ad (b).
1. KFC noted that because much of the content of the internet ads was the same as in the TV and ODPS ads, their comments were relevant to all the ads under investigation. They said the ads promoted the Double Deal, which included two Fillet Burgers and two regular drinks. No other burger was included in the offer, and the customer could select any regular drink.
KFC confirmed the Fillet Burger was not classified as high in fat, salt or sugar (HFSS). They said the only other product resembling that burger was the Zinger Burger, which also was not an HFSS product. They therefore were not classified as “less healthy” foods. Similarly, the drink shown in the ad, Pepsi Max, was non-HFSS. The two other Pepsi variants sold by KFC – Pepsi Max Cherry and Diet Pepsi – were also non-HFSS. Those three drinks therefore were not “less healthy” products. They provided relevant nutrient profile information.
While they were not responsible for responding in relation to the TV or ODPS ads, KFC confirmed that the first shot in those ads showed Mini Fillets. They confirmed Mini Fillets were not an HFSS product and provided nutrient profile information for the product.
They noted that the test determining whether an ad was in scope of the rules was whether a “less healthy” product was “identifiable”, in relation to ads, if persons in the UK (or any part of the UK) could reasonably be expected to be able to identify the ad as being for that product. They referred to CAP’s Guidance, in particular its guidance on how the prominence of a product in the ad could affect whether it was identifiable. KFC said CAP’s Guidance confirmed prominence would be assessed by reference to, amongst other things, the positioning of the product references and how attention was drawn to them. It also stated that imagery of “less healthy” products that people were unlikely to be able to recognise when viewing an ad in real time would be unlikely to meet the ‘identifiability test’, including where the product was shown very briefly.
KFC believed no average consumer would identify the ads as being for Mini Fillets. The creative and narrative focus of the ads was directed entirely at the Fillet Burgers and Pepsi Max drinks. The Mini Fillets appeared for less than a second as brief, contextual scene-setting at the outset of the ads. Nothing drew the viewer’s attention specifically to the Mini Fillets, and the average consumer viewing the ads in real time would not be able to recognise or identify them as a product that was being advertised.
The ads also could not be interpreted as depicting a “less healthy” food by way of featuring a non “less healthy” product that was visually indistinguishable from a “less healthy” food. Even if viewers did identify them as a product being advertised, Mini Fillets were visually distinguishable from other chicken menu items, such as Hot Wings and Original Recipe Chicken thighs and wings. The products all had distinctive and recognisable shapes and textures that an average consumer would readily identify. They provided comparative imagery.
Notwithstanding that point, KFC noted that the rules, reflecting legislation, applied only to ads which depicted a specific “less healthy” food that was capable of being purchased. The ‘frying’ footage showed mid-preparation food rather than the final product. They believed the ads therefore did not depict a product which met the definition set out in legislation.
2. In relation to the TV ad, Clearcast said that during the clearance process they requested information from KFC about the Double Deal promotion. KFC had confirmed that the Double Deal was comprised of two Fillet Burgers and two regular drinks, and that the drinks shown in the ad were both Pepsi Max. They provided nutritional profiles which confirmed that both products were non-HFSS. Clearcast was therefore content that the rules relating to “less healthy” foods did not apply to those products. The other drink options included in the Double Deal were Pepsi Max Cherry, Diet Pepsi, 7Up Sugar Free and Tango Sugar Free. Those also were not HFSS products and therefore also did not fall within the scope of the “less healthy” food rules.
Clearcast noted the ad did not specify which products were included in the Double Deal. However, even if a viewer was unable to identify the specific burger featured in the ad, if they ordered in-store or online they would not have the option to choose any burger other than the Fillet Burger. Viewers would not be able to identify the specific drink featured in the ad, but they would identify it as a Pepsi variant, and all the Pepsi variants sold as a regular drink by KFC were not HFSS products.
They considered the ad was advertising a specific product – the Double Deal – and it was clear to viewers that was what was being advertised. While the first two seconds of the ad featured the generic tagline “Let chicken consume you” and showed frying breaded fillet chicken, it then transitioned to referring to the Double Deal in the voice-over and on-screen text. It then depicted a clear pack shot of the products in the Deal. It was clear to viewers what was included.
Clearcast highlighted that CAP’s Guidance stated that if an ad included a realistic image, such as a photo or video of a product without packaging that was from a range of products that included both in and out of scope variants that were visually indistinguishable from one or more specific “less healthy” products, the ad should include additional information to make clear that the product shown was a non “less healthy” variant (for example, the product’s name or other identifier of the specific product variant). Clearcast considered the range of products in the ad was the Double Deal, and noted that everything in the range was not HFSS.
3. Channel Four said the products shown in the ad were the KFC Fillet Burger, Pepsi Max and KFC Mini Fillets, none of which were HFSS products. Those products therefore were not classified as “less healthy” foods.
They said the ad clearly set out that it was for KFC’s Double Deal, and viewers would understand it to be for the products in that Deal. Viewers could not reasonably be expected to identify that the ad was for products outside of the specified and defined range of products that were included in it.
They said that even if the ASA considered viewers understood the ad to be identifying products outside of the Double Deal, the only other products on KFC’s menu that resembled the Fillet Burger and Pepsi Max were the Zinger Burger and other Pepsi variants. Those products were not HFSS. Additionally, there were no other products on KFC’s menu which resembled the Mini Fillets. Therefore, a viewer could not reasonably be expected to identify the ad as being for a specific “less healthy” food.
Assessment
1. 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 understood that KFC had paid for ads (c), (d) and (e) to be placed on the internet.
The test determining whether an ad was covered by the restrictions was set out in law, as reflected in CAP 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.
The content of the videos in ads (c), (d) and (e) was very similar. The ads included photographic images of two of the same burger, and two cola drinks. The YouTube ad (d) did not include any additional content. The Reddit ad (c) and TikTok ad (e) included captions, but did not reference any specific products in the text. The ads included the text “LET CHICKEN CONSUME YOU”, and “BELIEVE IN CHICKEN”, which spoke to KFC’s overall offering as a chicken restaurant, and prominently referenced the “Double Deal” and the “deal” in the voice-over and large on-screen text. However, they did not identify which specific products were depicted in the ads. They also did not include information as to which products were available, either as set items or options to choose from, in the Double Deal.
We considered the average consumer who saw the ads was unlikely to know the details of the Double Deal branded offer. In that context, we considered consumers could reasonably be expected to identify that the ads were for a range of products that were included in the Double Deal, as set items or options. They could reasonably be expected to identify that the burgers and cola drinks shown in the ad were options available in the Deal, and therefore that the ads were for those products specifically and the Deal generally, including food and drink products that were “less healthy”.
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 capable of being purchased and 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 ads (c), (d) and (e):
1, An ad which depicted a specific “less healthy” food or drink product sold by KFC would be in breach of the “less healthy” food rule.
2. An ad which depicted a specific non “less healthy” food or drink product sold by KFC, by clearly identifying it as that specific non “less healthy” product (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 KFC food or drink product, but did not identify which specific product it was, we must assess whether the product shown in the ad was visually indistinguishable from any specific “less healthy” product sold by KFC. That was the case whether the realistic image in the ad was of a “less healthy” product, or a non ”less healthy” product. If it was visually indistinguishable from a “less healthy” product, 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 rules. 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 ASA understood from KFC that the photographic images in the ads showed Fillet Burgers and Pepsi Max. We first assessed whether those products were “less healthy” products. Burgers fell within the “less healthy” food Category 13. It included products ordered from a menu which by themselves, or together with other products from the same menu, were intended to be consumed as a complete meal; and sandwiches of any kind. However, KFC’s Fillet Burger was not an HFSS food, and it therefore also was not classified as a “less healthy” food. Pepsi Max did not contain added sugar ingredients, and therefore did not fall within a “less healthy” food category. It also was not classified as an HFSS product. The ads therefore did not depict any specific less healthy products; scenario 1, as referenced above, therefore did not apply.
While we understood those were the two products shown in the ads, the ads did not explicitly identify them, for example by including additional information such as the products’ names, or other identifiers of the specific product variants. As noted above, we considered the references to the Double Deal were not sufficient to identify to consumers which specific products were depicted in the ads. Scenario 2, referenced above, also therefore did not apply.
We must therefore assess whether the realistic images of the burger and cola drinks in the ads were visually indistinguishable from any specific “less healthy” food or drink products sold by KFC, as referenced at scenario 3.
The burgers shown in the ads looked the same. They had a bun, with sesame seeds and two scores across the top. Under the breaded chicken fillet was a layer of lettuce and a layer of white sauce, which appeared to be mayonnaise. We considered the burgers in the ads were visually indistinguishable from images of the Fillet Burger.
We understood that at the time the ads were seen, KFC offered a further six burgers. Four were Tower burgers (with more than one layer of chicken, or a layer of chicken and a hash brown) which were visually distinguishable from the one-layer burger in the ads. The Hot Honey Drip Burger (offered until 8 February 2026) included a slice of cheese and sauce on the breaded chicken fillet; it was also visually distinguishable from the burgers in the ads. We then compared the burgers in the ads with the remaining burger – the Zinger Burger. The burgers had the same bun, with sesame seeds and two scores across the top. Under the breaded chicken fillet was a layer of lettuce and a layer of white sauce, which appeared to be mayonnaise. The breaded chicken fillet in both burgers was the same colour and had the same textured appearance. We concluded the Zinger Burger was visually indistinguishable from the burgers in the ads. We therefore assessed whether the Zinger Burger was classified as a “less healthy” food. It fell within the same food Category as the Fillet Burger, and was not classified as HFSS. It therefore was not a “less healthy” food.
KFC offered two cola drinks in addition to Pepsi Max: Pepsi Max Cherry and Diet Pepsi. All three products were the same shade of brown and as such were visually indistinguishable from each other. However, neither Pepsi Max Cherry nor Diet Pepsi contained added sugar ingredients, and therefore did not fall within a “less healthy” food category. Additionally, none of them was an HFSS product.
Because the realistic images of the burgers and cola drinks in ads (c), (d) and (e) were not visually indistinguishable from any specific less healthy food or drink, we concluded the paid-for ads placed on Reddit, YouTube and TikTok were brand advertisements. We concluded the ads were out of scope of the “less healthy” product rule and did not breach the Code.
On that point, we investigated ads (c), (d) and (e) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 15.19 (Placement of less healthy food and drink product advertisements online), but did not find them in breach.
2. & 3. Not 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 9.00 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 9.00 pm.
Both the TV ad (a) and ODPS ad (b) were seen by complainants during the day, before 9.00 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. 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.
Ads (a) and (b) had exactly the same content. That content was very similar to the videos in the ads placed on the internet. The only significant difference was that the TV and ODPS ads included an additional shot at the beginning; a video of breaded chicken pieces frying in oil. While that shot was brief, we considered it was of sufficient length and prominence that consumers could reasonably be expected to identify that it showed breaded chicken pieces.
The ads began with large on-screen text “LET CHICKEN CONSUME YOU”, and ended with “GET THE DEAL BELIEVE IN CHICKEN”, which spoke to KFC’s overall offering as a chicken restaurant. The ads also prominently referenced the “Double Deal” and the “deal” in the voice-over and large on-screen text. However, they did not identify which specific products were depicted in the ads. They also did not include information as to which products were available, either as set items or options to choose from, in the Double Deal.
We considered the average consumer who saw the ads was unlikely to know the details of the Double Deal branded offer. In that context, we considered consumers could reasonably be expected to identify that the ads were for a range of products that were included in the Double Deal, as set items or options. Given the generalised references to “CHICKEN” and the video imagery of chicken pieces, we considered consumers could reasonably be expected to identify that the chicken pieces, burgers and cola drinks shown in the ad were specific products sold by KFC, and that they were options available in the Deal. They therefore could reasonably be expected to identify that the ads were for those products specifically and the Deal generally, including food and drink products that were “less healthy”.
However, brand advertisements (those that promoted a brand, including the brand of a range of products), were exempt from the restrictions in BCAP Code rule 32.21 and CAP Code rule 30.16, 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 capable of being purchased and was differentiated from other products, unless it was only differentiated by pack size or packaging format.
As at Point 1, the ASA must therefore consider which of the following scenarios applied to ads (a) and (b):
1. An ad which depicted a specific “less healthy” food or drink product sold by KFC would be in breach of the “less healthy” food rule.
2. An ad which depicted a specific non “less healthy” food or drink product sold by KFC, by clearly identifying it as that specific non “less healthy” product (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 KFC food or drink product, but did not identify which specific product it was, we must assess whether the product shown in the ad was visually indistinguishable from any specific “less healthy” product sold by KFC. That was the case whether the realistic image in the ad was of a “less healthy” product, or a non “less healthy” product. If it was visually indistinguishable from a “less healthy” product, 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 rules. 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.
Because ads (a) and (b) showed the same photographic images of the burgers and cola drinks as in ads (c), (d) and (e), we came to the same conclusion in relation to the imagery of those products. The products depicted were not “less healthy” foods, but they were not explicitly identified. Scenarios 1 and 2, referenced above, therefore did not apply. We therefore assessed whether the realistic images of those products were visually indistinguishable from any specific “less healthy” food or drink products sold by KFC, as referenced at scenario 3. As set out at Point 1, both the burgers and the cola drinks were visually indistinguishable from other products, but those other products were not "less healthy” products.
The ASA understood from KFC that the realistic video imagery of the breaded chicken pieces in ads (a) and (b) showed Mini Fillets. We first assessed whether they were a “less healthy” product.
They fell within the “less healthy” food Category 13, which included products ordered from a menu which by themselves, or together with other products from the same menu, were intended to be consumed as a complete meal; and breaded or battered poultry products. However, we understood they were not classified as HFSS, and therefore also were not classified as a “less healthy” food.
While we understood that the breaded chicken pieces shown in the ads were the non-HFSS Mini Fillets, the ads did not explicitly identify them as such. We acknowledged that in the ads they were shown frying in oil and therefore in preparation rather than being in the final state in which they would be served to customers. However, because they were shown in realistic imagery, we must assess whether, in that imagery, they were visually indistinguishable from any specific “less healthy” food product sold by KFC.
We noted there was natural variation between individual breaded chicken pieces, which was illustrated by the variation between each chicken piece shown in the ads’ imagery. For example, while each piece was of a similar size and shape there were variations; and while the breaded coating on each had a similar colour and texture, there were slight variations. We considered it was reasonable for us to take those natural variations into account when assessing whether the product shown in the ads was visually indistinguishable from other products.
The chicken pieces in the ads were shown frying in oil, and the bubbling oil was visible around the edge of each piece, but the breading on each piece was browned and they had the appearance of being cooked through. Therefore, while they were shown during preparation, we noted that aside from needing to be removed from the oil they appeared as they would when served, and that the final served product was one which was capable of being purchased. We considered the chicken pieces as shown in the ad were visually indistinguishable from images of Mini Fillets provided by KFC and on their website. There were three other breaded chicken piece products offered by KFC: Boneless Chicken (with dip); Hot Wings; and Original Recipe Chicken – thighs and wings. We compared images of those products with the imagery in the ad.
The Boneless Chicken pieces had a very similar shape to some of the chicken pieces in the ads, and had a very similar colouring and texture. Taking into account natural variation, we considered they were visually indistinguishable from the chicken pieces in the ads. We understood from KFC that Boneless Chicken and Mini Fillets were in fact the same food; Boneless Chicken therefore also was non-HFSS and as such were not “less healthy”.
The Hot Wings had a lighter brown colour and a more textured coating compared to the product imagery in the ads; we considered the two products were therefore distinguishable. Finally, we compared the Original Recipe Chicken, which included both thighs and wings. While the shape of some of the chicken pieces in the ads’ imagery was similar to the Original Recipe Chicken wings, most were longer and thinner. The Original Recipe Chicken thighs and wings were also consistently a slightly lighter brown than the chicken in the ads and the texture of the coating was also smoother. We considered the imagery of the food shown in the ads was also therefore distinguishable from that product.
Because the realistic images of the burgers, cola drinks and breaded chicken in ads (a) and (b) were not visually indistinguishable from any specific “less healthy” food or drink, we concluded the TV and ODPS ads were brand advertisements. We concluded the ads were therefore out of scope of the “less healthy” product rules and did not breach the Codes.
On point 2, we investigated ad (a) under BCAP Code rule 32.21 (Scheduling of less healthy product advertisements), but did not find it in breach.
On point 3, we investigated ad (b) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 30.16 (Advertising rules for on-demand services regulated by statute), but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
