Background
This ruling forms part of a wider piece of work on prescription-only medicines (POMs) used for weight loss, identified for investigation following complaints and intelligence gathered by the ASA.
See also related rulings published between 9 July 2025 and 4 November 2026.
Ad description
A Video on Demand (VOD) ad for Voy, an online pharmacy, seen on 3 August 2026, began with “voy” in large white text on a black and orange background above a curved glowing line that resembled the edge of a planet. Music from the film “2001: A Space Odyssey” (Thus spoke Zarathustra by Richard Strauss) played throughout the ad.
Large white text, “Oral weight support”, was superimposed on a close-up image of a circular pill. The camera moved away from the pill, and it became smaller and whiter until it formed the full stop at the end of large on-screen text that stated “It’s kind of a small deal”. A silhouetted hand reached down and picked the pill up and held it between its thumb and index finger.
Large on-screen text then stated “Start your journey today”. Small text at the bottom of the screen stated “Glucomannan supplement contributes to weight loss as part of an energy-restricted diet. Beneficial effect obtained with 3g daily, in 3x1g doses with 1–2 glasses of water before meals”. The ad ended with the Voy logo and the URL “joinvoy.com/change” above the small text.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the ad had the effect of promoting a POM to the public.
Response
Menwell Ltd t/a Voy said that, when assessed as a whole, the ad promoted their glucomannan supplement rather than a POM. They said there was nothing in the ad that functioned as a marker of a POM: no medicine was named; no GLP-1 terminology used; no clinical setting shown; and no reference made to prescribing, dosing frequency or pricing for any medicine. They said that the ad observed all the guidance in CAP’s Enforcement Notice: “Prescription-only medicines used for weight management”.
Voy said that the ad’s small print expressly identified glucomannan and explained its use alongside an energy-restricted diet. They said that the tablet imagery and phrase “oral weight support” should be assessed in that context. They did not believe that viewers would understand the ad to be promoting a different product to the one named.
Voy said that the opening horizon shot and orchestral score were a device to hold viewers’ attention before the product was shown. It achieved that through playing with scale and colour tone. They said that nothing in that sequence made any claim, visually or verbally, about medicine, treatment or licensing. They said that the imagery evolved into the glucomannan tablet that was the subject of the ad and that seeing that build-up as signalling a new medicine launch depended on associations a viewer would bring to the ad, rather than anything the ad itself stated or showed.
Voy believed the relevant test was how the ad would be understood by an ordinary member of the public rather than by someone approaching it already looking for a possible reference to a POM, and that generic phrases such as “oral weight support” did not breach the CAP Code where they were explicitly tied to a named supplement and made no reference to a POM. Voy said that the phrase “It’s kind of a small deal” was a reference to glucomannan and that the tablet in the ad had the appearance of their glucomannan product. They provided an image of a glucomannan tablet, and described it as a small, plain white, compressed powder pill.
Voy said that nothing in the ad denoted a POM or a choice between different forms of treatment. They also said that there was no stated framing, comparison or depiction in the ad that communicated that it was an alternative to an injectable treatment.
Voy said that Appendix 6 of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) Blue Guide stated that once a user actively chose to go further into a site from the home page, non-promotional information about specific medicines could be presented. They said that the MHRA Blue Guide stated that this applied to the content of their website generally, other than the home page, as well as once a consumer had chosen to enter their patient consultation route.
Voy said that the only product shown on the landing page was the product mentioned in the ad: glucomannan. They also said that the consumer was required to make three further clicks to see a POM and the fact it was a VOD ad meant that it was a step further from a POM: the consumer could not directly click onto the URL from the ad. They believed the mention of a POM was far removed from both the ad and the URL mentioned in it, and was made on a purely factual basis within the consultation funnel that an individual would have actively chosen to click through.
Voy also said that they had obtained Clearcast’s approval before the ad was run and had suspended the ad until the ASA investigation was complete.
Clearcast said they had approved the ad for broadcast as well as advising that it complied with the CAP Code for VOD use. They believed the ad’s overall impression was of a glucomannan food supplement, not a POM. They had considered the ad as a whole and believed it contained none of the identifiable POM signifiers listed in CAP’s AdviceOnline entry on “Weight control: Prescription-only medicines”.
Clearcast said that the ad did not say, “new medicine”, “new treatment”, “breakthrough”, “now licensed” or anything similar, and contained no clinical, prescribing, injection or pharmaceutical imagery. They believed any inferred reference to an oral GLP-1 medication depended on prior specialist knowledge and a series of inferences not established by the ad.
Clearcast said they had considered the product classification, wording, authorised health claim, tablet appearance, possible associations with POMs and the destination URL, and had requested amendments and assurances before giving their approval. They said they had required the qualification to begin “Glucomannan supplement […]” to tell viewers explicitly what was being advertised. They also required the tablet to be a clear representation of actual glucomannan tablets, and had considered whether its shape or colour could be confused with a POM weight-loss tablet. They said their approval was on the basis that the pill shown was the advertised supplement and that there was no risk of confusion with a POM tablet, and explained that they were content that the white tablet represented the actual product accurately.
Clearcast also said that the small text at the bottom of the screen was substantive product information, not an incidental reference. It identified the supplement, and included the ingredient, authorised health claim and conditions of use. They said that wording remained on screen during the concluding section, including the call to action and final frame.
Clearcast said that they did not consider “Oral weight support” to be a coded reference to an oral GLP-1 medication; it described the format and purpose of the glucomannan supplement product that was shown. They said that “Oral” was not exclusive to medicines and that “weight support” did not claim to treat obesity, suppress appetite or reproduce a medicinal effect.
Clearcast recognised that the glowing horizon and the apparent planetary scale created a dramatic effect, heightened by the use of the music which was often associated with “2001: A Space Odyssey” but said that it had been used in other ways as well; for example, at Elvis Presley concerts throughout the 1970s and in the film “Wall-E”. They described the use of dramatic moments to hook a viewer in as a familiar advertising device, which focused attention on the glucomannan pill and gave the product reveal its impact.
They said that the apparent horizon was progressively revealed to be the small tablet itself, creating a deliberate contrast between the grand introduction and the line “It’s kind of a small deal”. They described that device as showcasing the supplement and playing with scale, rather than communicating the launch of a newly licensed oral GLP-1 medication.
They also described the line “It’s kind of a small deal” and associated imagery as emphasising how small the tablet was. They said that the device was humorous. The humour came from how the dramatic music and visuals were undercut by the reveal that all that was being advertised was the small glucomannan tablet. They also said that glucomannan had been available for some time and had an authorised health claim, so the ad was essentially suggesting that viewers cut through noise, confusion and controversy around weight loss to look to the unfussy and unglamorous but dependable glucomannan supplement.
Clearcast said that the ad included no mention or image of an injection, and no reference to needle anxiety, or a choice between oral and injectable treatment. They said that reading the sequence as an allusion to consumers’ reluctance to inject required an additional chain of assumptions not supported by the content of the ad, unlike the literal connection between “small deal” and the size of the featured supplement shown on screen.
Clearcast said they had reviewed the proposed destination URL and considered it acceptable because the landing page did not refer to POMs. They said they had required the page to be checked again during clearance to ensure it remained focused on glucomannan. Clearcast stated that CAP guidance identified particular concern where an ad linked directly to a landing page that referred to a POM or implied that a POM would result from a consultation. They said that the advertised URL did not link directly to a page featuring injection pens.
Sky On Demand said that, although the ad was only run on their VOD service, they had run it because it had been approved by Clearcast for linear TV and VOD.
Assessment
Upheld
The CAP Code stated that POMS must not be advertised to the general public.
The ASA understood that the Wegovy (semaglutide) tablet was the first oral GLP-1 tablet to be approved by the MHRA, and was licensed as a POM on 11 June 2026. Private availability followed in July 2026. We also understood that glucomannan, a food supplement used for weight management, had been used in the UK for decades as a regulated food additive (E425). Its availability as a weight-loss supplement increased following the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) approval in 2010 of the health claim that glucomannan, in the context of an energy-restricted diet, contributed to weight loss.
In assessing the likely consumer interpretation of the ad, we had regard to our research on how people interpreted ads relating to prescription-only weight-loss medicines, published in April 2026. We acknowledged that the research was conducted before oral prescription-only weight-loss medicines were licensed in the UK and therefore did not specifically examine consumers’ understanding of those products. Nevertheless, we considered the findings remained relevant to the broader question of how consumers identified advertising for prescription-only weight-loss medicines.
The research found that the extent to which consumers identified advertising as promoting prescription-only weight-loss medicines varied considerably between ads, depending on the combination and strength of the signals used. Overall, the research demonstrated that consumers often inferred meaning from the combination of an ad's imagery, language, claims and overall presentation, and that, even where a medicine was not explicitly named, those combined signals could lead consumers to understand that a prescription-only weight-loss medicine was being promoted.
The ad started with a curved glowing line that resembled the edge of a planet, accompanied by music from the film “2001: A Space Odyssey”. The ad included large white text, “Oral weight support”, superimposed on a close-up image of a circular pill. The pill became smaller until it formed the full stop at the end of on-screen text that stated, “It’s kind of a small deal”. A hand picked up the pill, and held it between its thumb and index finger. Small text at the bottom of the screen during the second half of the ad referred to “Glucomannan supplement"
We considered that an image that resembled a planet accompanied by music associated with the opening fanfare of a well-known film related to space exploration would be interpreted as implying that something new and significant was happening. The ad was seen on 3 August 2026, less than two months after the Wegovy oral tablet had been approved in the UK and had received significant media coverage, and only a few weeks after the tablet was made available privately.
Given that context and because the opening fanfare scene was followed by the large text, “Oral weight support”, superimposed on a close-up image of a circular pill, we considered that consumers were likely to interpret the significant development as related to weight loss and a pill that supported weight loss. We further considered that consumers would interpret it as an allusion to the newly available GLP-1 tablets, rather than the promotion of an over-the-counter supplement that had been on the market since 2010: glucomannan.
Whilst we understood that the image of the pill in the ad corresponded to the appearance of Voy’s glucomannan tablets, we also noted that the pill looked generic. It was a plain, white, round tablet with no distinguishing features or marks that confirmed it was glucomannan.
The text, “It’s kind of a small deal” was accompanied by visual imagery that showed the pill to be small in size. We considered that it was likely to be understood by viewers to be a play on words of the phrase “a big deal”. We considered that this added to the impression that something significant and impactful was happening. In the context of an ad for “Oral weight support” and given the wider context outlined above, we again considered that viewers would be likely to interpret that significant development to be the newly available oral GLP-1 medication. We considered that would be particularly significant for those people for whom taking tablets would be preferable to receiving injections.
For those reasons, we considered consumers were likely to interpret the ad as promoting the new GLP-1 tablet, which was classed as a POM, rather than glucomannan, which had been available in an unchanged format for some time. Although the ad directly mentioned glucomannan, we did not consider that the small text was sufficient to override that impression. We therefore considered that the ad promoted a POM to the public.
We also considered the wider customer journey. The ad ended with the URL joinvoy.com/change. Viewers who typed in that URL were presented with another image of a hand with the pill between the thumb and index finger. Large text stated, “It’s kind of a small deal”. Smaller text stated, “Oral weight support that’s easy to start and easy to stick with”. That was followed by a clickable button labelled “Start your journey with Voy”.
Upon clicking on that button, consumers were directed to a filtering page asking whether they were exploring their options or ready to start treatment. Regardless of which option was selected, the consumer was then taken to the same page with before-and-after images of a man and a woman, who had lost weight, and a “Continue” button.
After clicking on the “Continue” button, consumers were directed to a page with an image of two injection pens and three white tablets stamped with “novo”. One injection pen showed the name and branding of Mounjaro (tirzepatide), and the other Wegovy (semaglutide), both POMs. We understood that the stamp “novo” indicated that the tablets were from the pharmaceutical company Novo Nordisk. We further understood that Novo Nordisk manufactured Wegovy tablets.
None of those pages in the customer journey included references to glucomannan. Conversely, a pill with “novo” on it was presented within the customer journey alongside two injection pens, branded Mounjaro (tirzepatide) and Wegovy (semaglutide). We considered that that supported our assessment of the likely interpretation of the ad as promoting POMs.
We sought advice from the MHRA who, taking into account the consumer journey from the ad, considered that it was designed to promote, and was likely to lead to use of, a POM because of the journey the consumer was led to, upon seeing the ad and visiting the website highlighted at the end of the ad.
The MHRA was also concerned that the design of the ad was disingenuous and would frustrate the intent of the regulator by trying to identify the ad as being for a non-medicinal product (glucomannan). They said the ad went against the essential aim of complying with the advertising rules, which existed to safeguard public health and prevent the potentially dangerous overconsumption of medicinal products. The MHRA was also concerned that the ad was misleading and did not support rational use of a medicinal product by presenting a tablet as “kind of a small deal”.
For the above reasons, we considered that the ad promoted POMs to the public and concluded that it breached the Code.
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 Menwell Ltd t/a Voy not to promote POMs to the public in future.
