Background
This ruling forms part of a wider piece of work on prostate health. The ad was identified for investigation following intelligence gathered 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 10 December 2025.
Summary of Council decision: Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
Two paid-for Google ads for Nutreance seen in June 2025:
a. The first ad contained text that stated, “Top 5 Supplements www.top5supplements.com/prostate-health Cranberry: Good for Prostates? - These 5 Remedies Ranked Higher Out of 100s of prostate supplements for urine flow, we rated these 5 higher than cranberry Our experts rated these 5 prostate supplements above cranberry for safety & effectiveness. 5 Best for Bladder Urges”. Clicking on the link in the ad took consumers to the ad’s landing page where Nutreance’s Prostacor supplement was ranked number one.
b. The second ad contained text that stated, “Top 5 Supplements www.top5supplements.com/prostate-health Saw Palmetto for Prostates? - These 5 Remedies Ranked Higher Our experts rated these 5 brands higher than saw palmetto for effectiveness. Out of hundreds of prostate supplements, we rated these 5 higher than saw palmetto alone. 5 Best for Urinary Urges. 5 Best for Bladder Urges”. Clicking on the link in the ad took consumers to the ad’s landing page where Nutreance’s Prostacor supplement was ranked number one.
Issue
The ASA challenged whether the:
- claims in the ads that stated or implied that the prostate supplements could help to treat or cure symptoms of urine incontinence or urine flow problems were in breach of the Code; and
- ads falsely implied that the marketer was acting for purposes outside its business and did not make their commercial intent clear.
Response
1. Nutreance LLC t/a Top 5 Supplements said that their ads, and the landing pages to which they linked, did not state or imply that their product treated, cured or prevented any disease or medical symptoms, and the ads made no references to diseases, diagnoses, pathological conditions or clinical outcomes.
They stated that the ads included editorial rankings of food supplements within the consumer category of “prostate supplements”. The statements were substantiated by reviews of the products, which were publicly posted on third-party retail websites and a consumer review website, which categorised the products as "prostate supplements" and they confirmed that their product was the highest rated in that category. They said that the ads were comparative in nature, and the content was framed as a ranking of products based on stated criteria, rather than a promise that any single product delivered a medical outcome; phrases such as “Good for” and “ranked higher” did not assert a medical function, and the fact that their product was ranked first was not a medicinal claim. In addition, they said that the question marks after certain statements emphasised the possibility, but not the certainty, that some generic ingredients may be beneficial for general health, for example: "cranberry: good for prostates?" and "saw palmetto for prostates?".
They stated that phrases like “urinary urges” and “urine flow” in their ads reflected everyday experiences and general wellbeing, which consumers usually associated with age or lifestyle factors, for example, frequent nighttime bathroom visits, without presuming disease.
They said that the landing pages of the ads also included multiple prominent disclosures that none of the products presented were intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. In addition, none of the products on the linked landing pages contained any active medicinal ingredients according to UK law, and therefore the products presented should not be construed as medicinal products.
They also stated that the brand name “Prostacor” was a fanciful trademark and did not, on its own, communicate a medical claim.
2. They stated that their ads were clearly presented as ads, with the Google "Sponsored" label in bold and displayed at the top of each ad, and repeated on the landing pages. The “Sponsored” label in the Google ads was in accordance with the ASA’s own guidance on platform ad labels. They said that they were presented as sponsored, not independent content, and phrasing such as “Our experts rated” and “we rated these 5 higher” clearly signalled that these ratings were theirs, and not those of an independent panel. They said where the word “experts” appeared, they could further clarify that it referenced in-house reviewers and not an independent panel, by adding the text “our in-house team” to the ad.
The fact that the site was owned and operated by Nutreance LLC was clearly shown via Google’s ad interface, which disclosed the full name of the company “Nutreance LLC” as the party responsible for the ad content. They added that they complied with the guidelines that Google required of them to present the ads to UK consumers.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The CAP Code stated that claims which stated or implied a food could prevent, treat or cure human disease were prohibited for foods; including food supplements. It also stated that medicinal claims may be made for a medicinal product that was licensed by the MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) or under the auspices of the EMA (European Medicines Agency). Medicines must have a license from the MHRA or under the auspices of the EMA before they were marketed.
Ad (a) stated, “Cranberry: Good for Prostates? - These 5 Remedies Ranked Higher”, “Out of 100s of prostate supplements for urine flow, we rated these 5 higher […]”, “Our experts rated these 5 prostate supplements above cranberry for […] effectiveness” and “5 Best for Bladder Urges”. Ad (b) made the same claims as ad (a), but in comparison with saw palmetto supplements, and also included the claim “5 Best for Urinary Urges”. Whilst we noted Nutreance’s point that the ad was drawing comparisons with other supplements based on consumer reviews, we considered that consumers would understand the claims to mean that the “five” supplement products could alleviate urine incontinence and urine flow problems, and would understand from the references to “prostate supplements” that those were symptoms of prostate problems.
On clicking through to the landing page from both ads, Nutreance’s product “Prostacor” was ranked top. We considered consumers would therefore understand that Prostacor specifically would have the effects as described in the paid-for Google search ads. In the context of those claims, we considered that the name of the supplement, “Prostacor”, further added to that impression.
Claims to relieve symptoms, or to cure, or to provide a remedy or heal a specific disease or adverse condition of body or mind were regarded as a medicinal claim. Urine incontinence and urine flow problems were symptoms of adverse medical conditions in males, including for example prostate problems, such as an enlarged prostate. We therefore considered the claims referenced above were medicinal claims and the name of the product “Prostacor” in the context of the ad implied that the product had medicinal properties, and that the product would be understood by consumers as medicinal, by its presentation.
Nutreance’s Prostacor product was, in general terms, marketed as a food supplement. The Code prohibited claims that a food, which included food supplements, could prevent, treat, or cure human disease. For the purposes of the legislation reflected in the Code, that included medicinal claims. We concluded the claims therefore were prohibited claims that a food could prevent, treat or cure human disease. Additionally, because the ad made medicinal claims for the referenced products, including Prostacor, they were defined as medicinal products for the purposes of medicine legislation. Claims that a product had medicinal properties may only be made for a medicinal product that was authorised by the MHRA or under the auspices of the EMA. We understood Nutreance LLC did not hold such authorisation for Prostacor.
Nutreance stated that the landing pages from the ads included disclosures that none of the products presented were intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. However, even if ads (a) and (b) had included such a statement, they would still have included medicinal claims. The ads were therefore in breach of the Code’s requirements relating both to food supplements and to medicinal products.
On that point, ads (a) and (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 12.1, 12.11 (Medicines, medical devices health-related products and beauty products), 15.6 and 15.6.2 (Food, food supplements and associated health or nutrition claims).
2. Upheld
The CAP Code prohibited marketers from implying that they were acting for purposes outside their trade, business, craft or profession. It also required that ads must be obviously identifiable as such, and that ads must make their commercial intent clear.
The www.top5supplements.com website was owned and operated by Nutreance LLC.
The ads stated, “Top 5 Supplements www.top5supplements.com/prostate-health” and “Our experts rated these 5 brands higher” and “we rated these 5 higher”. We considered that the name of the website and references to “experts” rating products gave the overall impression that the website was operated by an independent third-party review company that provided independent, unbiased expert assessments of the effectiveness of supplement products.
We noted Nutreance’s point that “Sponsored” was clearly displayed. We considered that in general, people understood “sponsored” in a Google search result to mean that it was an ad paid for by the company or organisation referenced in the ad or URL. We therefore considered that it did not alter the overall impression that the website that consumers would click through to, and from which the reviews in the ad were taken, was an independent review site. Additionally, while consumers who clicked from the ads into Google’s Ad Centre would see that they were paid for by a company called Nutreance LLC, that was not sufficient to counteract the impression that the website to which the ads linked was an independent review site.
Because the ads presented the website, top5supplements.com, as an independent buyer’s guide or reviews website when that was not the case, we concluded that they did not make their commercial intent clear and falsely implied that Nutreance LLC was acting for purposes outside its business.
On that point, ads (a) and (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 2.1, 2.3 (Recognition of marketing communications), 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.9 (Qualification).
Action
The ads must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Nutreance LLC t/a Top 5 Supplements not to state or imply that their food supplements could prevent, treat or cure human disease, which included claims to treat or cure the symptoms of prostate problems. We also told them not to make medicinal claims for products that were not authorised by the MHRA. We told them to ensure their ads made their commercial intent clear and did not falsely claim or imply they were acting for purposes outside their trade, for example by presenting websites, over which they had control, as independent review websites, including in paid-for ads.
CAP Code (Edition 12)
2.1 2.3 3.1 3.9 12.1 12.11 15.6 15.6.2
