Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A paid-for Facebook ad for Kind Patches, a supplement company, seen in March 2026, had a caption that stated "Take control of your cravings and metabolism with the GLP-1 Patch - your smarter path to weight management. Reduce hunger naturally Stay fuller for longer [...]".
The video in the ad showed a woman applying a supplement patch from a packet labelled "GLP-1 Patches". On-screen text stated "POV: your [sic] a breastfeeding mom who wants to be snatched but can't use those sharp things once a week".
Issue
1. The ASA challenged whether the ad implied that the product had the same medicinal effects as GLP-1 agonist medication.
2. The complainant and the ASA challenged whether the ad was harmful and irresponsible, because the product should not be used by mothers who were breastfeeding without prior consultation with a healthcare professional and it suggested that new mothers should prioritise weight loss after birth which exploited their insecurities around body image.
Response
Kind Patches Ltd said that the GLP-1 Patch had been withdrawn from sale. They said the post was organic and unpaid. It had been created and published by a third-party affiliate. It was not a paid campaign produced or distributed by them: the creative had not been briefed, commissioned or approved by them in advance. However, they accepted that they remained responsible for it under the CAP Code and should have had tighter monitoring of affiliate content.
They said they had removed the post as soon as it came to their attention. It had only run briefly and had received low impressions (the number of times it was shown). They had also reviewed their internal sign-off process for affiliate and influencer content to prevent similar material appearing again.
1. They did not consider the claims to be medicinal and referred to the context of the claims: an ad for a non-medical patch. They said that the product did not require a Marketing Authorisation from the MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency), as they did not consider the product to be medicinal by function or presentation.
They described the GLP-1 Patch as a topical product with non-pharmaceutical ingredients that were not prescription-only medicines (POMs) but were commonly understood to support the body’s own appetite-regulation and satiety mechanisms. They said the patches did not contain semaglutide, tirzepatide, liraglutide, exenatide or any other active medicinal substance. They also said that they did not refer to any specific POM by name or by mechanism in their advertising.
Kind Patches said GLP-1 (glucagon-like peptide-1) was a hormone produced naturally by the human body. Their reference to a “GLP-1 Patch” was intended as a reference to the body’s natural GLP-1 pathway that the product was formulated to support, rather than to any pharmaceutical analogue. They recognised, however, that public awareness of prescription GLP-1 agonists had grown rapidly and would factor that into how they presented the product, although the term “GLP-1” described a biological mechanism they believed was widely referred to in nutrition science, and other health and well-being marketing.
They said the claims “Reduce hunger naturally” and “Stay fuller for longer” were general appetite and satiety claims, and did not claim to diagnose, treat, prevent, cure or modify any disease, injury, ailment or physiological function. They said the term “naturally” reinforced that the product supported the body’s normal satiety response and was not a pharmacological intervention. They accepted, however, that the reference to “sharp things once a week” implied a comparison with weekly-injection GLP-1 agonist medicines.
2. Kind Patches also accepted concerns about the scenario of a breastfeeding mother. They apologised to anyone who felt the ad trivialised health considerations affecting breastfeeding mothers or exploited body-image insecurities at a vulnerable time. They accepted that the format was the wrong vehicle for any conversation about post-partum customers: the framing focused on appearance rather than on giving women useful information. They understood the ad could be interpreted as suggesting that new mothers should prioritise their appearance after birth. That was not their intent, but they recognised the format and language did not adequately guard against that interpretation.
They did not recommend use of the patch by a breastfeeding mother without prior consultation with a qualified healthcare professional, and had updated their website FAQ and product information to make that clear, as well as revised on-pack and on-site advisory wording.
They accepted their internal, approval process had not adequately considered the sensitivities of a post-partum audience or body-image concerns more broadly; and said they had introduced a revised review checklist requiring senior sign-off for content involving pregnancy, post-partum, breastfeeding or other vulnerable-audience scenarios, as well as updating staff on the requirements of the CAP Code.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The CAP Code stated that medicinal claims may be made for a medicinal product that was licensed by the MHRA or under the auspices of the EMA (European Medicines Agency). Medicines must have an authorisation from the MHRA or under the auspices of the EMA before they were marketed.
The ASA considered that consumers were likely to understand "Take control of your cravings”, “Reduce hunger naturally” and “Stay fuller for longer", alongside the reference to “the GLP-1 Patch - your smarter path to weight management” in an ad for a product called “GLP-1 Patch”, to mean the product was equivalent to or had similar effects to GLP-1 agonist injections, which were POMs used for weight loss. In the context of claims relating to GLP-1 agonist injections, we considered that product claims to reduce hunger or cravings, and to assist someone to feel fuller for longer, would also be understood as medicinal by presentation.
We also reviewed the text "your [sic] a breastfeeding mom who wants to be snatched but can't use those sharp things once a week". We considered that it referred to weight loss with the term “snatched” and alluded to POM injections for weight loss with the phrase “those sharp things once a week". We considered that comparison with POMs used for weight loss also to be a medicinal claim.
Because the claims implied that the product, which was marketed as supplement patches, had medicinal properties, it was defined as a medicinal product by presentation for the purposes of the medicines legislation reflected in the Code. However, the advertiser did not hold the necessary authorisation. We therefore concluded that the ad breached the Code.
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).
2. 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.
We 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 in the period when breastfeeding.
Although Kind Patches said they would not recommend that breastfeeding mothers used the supplement patch without prior consultation with a qualified healthcare professional, we considered that the text in the ad “your [sic] a breastfeeding mom who wants to be snatched” was likely to be understood by consumers as promoting the product directly to breastfeeding mothers and that the product was therefore suitable for their use. We considered that by suggesting the product was suitable for breastfeeding mothers, when in reality Kind Patches did not endorse its use by such individuals without prior consultation with a healthcare professional, the ad was irresponsible.
We also considered that consumers would interpret the ad as suggesting that new mothers should prioritise losing weight, during the period when they were breastfeeding. We therefore considered that the ad exploited women’s insecurities about body image and perpetuated pressure on them, particularly new mothers, to conform to body-image stereotypes. We therefore considered the ad included a harmful gender stereotype and was also irresponsible on that basis.
We welcomed Kind Patches’ comments that they had taken steps to avoid that happening again in future.
However, for the reasons stated above, we concluded that the ad was irresponsible, included a harmful gender stereotype and breached the Code.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code rules 1.3 (Social responsibility) and 4.9 (Harm and offence).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Kind Patches Ltd not to make medicinal claims for products that did not have the necessary authorisation. We also told them to ensure their ads were prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society, and did not include harmful gender stereotypes that were likely to cause harm, or serious or widespread offence.
