Background
This ruling forms part of a wider piece of work on autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). 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
A paid-for Facebook ad for Onecare, a supplement brand, seen on 12 February 2025, featured the caption “Discover the transformative power of AURA7™, crafted to support children with autism by improving mood stability and cognitive function. Each sachet delivers 8 Billion CFUs of PS23™ psychobiotics and essential nutrients that work through the gut-brain axis, balancing gut microbiota to reduce anxiety, enhance brain function, and promote emotional well-being. Science-backed Ingredients No Side Effects […] Give your child the gift of a calmer, more balanced life with AURA™” followed by hyperlink of the product page, www.onecare.store/buy/aura7.
A video underneath featured an image of two parents and a child, with on-screen text that stated, “Ease the challenges of autism”, “70% feel less irritated from sights, sounds or tastes”, “68% are able to engaged [sic] in conversations” and “65% feel comfortable adapting with routine changes”. Small text underneath stated “Results based on 17 autism [sic] kids over a 1-month period”.
The text “No Meltdowns & Tantrums With AURA7™” appeared alongside a “Learn More” button at the bottom of the ad.
Issue
The ASA challenged whether the:
- claims in the ad that stated or implied the supplement, or substances in it, could help prevent, treat or cure traits of autism, were in breach of the Code; and
- ad included specific health claims and general health claims that breached the Code.
Response
1.& 2. Onecare Wellness Pte Ltd t/a Onecare said they had paused the ad, as well as several additional ads across their accounts that contained similar wording. They said they were strengthening their internal compliance process to ensure that future campaigns avoided direct references to medical conditions such as autism, ADHD and dyslexia, and only used claims authorised on the GB Nutrition & Health Claims Register.
They added that they had removed references to the product from all ads that targeted the UK and had implemented internal controls to prevent any future advertising of the product to UK audiences.
Assessment
1.Upheld
The CAP Code (which reflected legislation) stated that claims which stated or implied a food prevented, treated or cured human disease were not acceptable in marketing communications 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.
The ad stated that the product was “[…] crafted to support children with autism by improving mood stability and cognitive function”, could “Ease the challenges of autism” and “[…] give your child the gift of a calmer, more balanced life”. It also referenced a one-month study involving 17 children with autism who had taken the supplement, stating that a majority experienced improvements in sensory sensitivities, communication, and adaptability to routine change. It included the claim “No meltdowns and tantrums with AURA7”. The ASA considered those claims would be interpreted as references that the product could help manage the traits of autism or autism spectrum disorder (ASD).
The ad also stated, “Each sachet delivers 8 Billion CFUs of PS23™ psychobiotics and essential nutrients that work through the gut-brain axis, balancing gut microbiota to reduce anxiety, enhance brain function, and promote emotional well-being". We considered consumers would interpret that claim as suggesting the product could help alleviate conditions which may co-occur with autism, such as anxiety and learning difficulties.
Claims to relieve symptoms, or to cure, or to provide a remedy or heal a specific health condition or adverse condition of body or mind were regarded as medicinal claims. Because the claims referenced above suggested the product could help manage the traits of autism or ASD, and help with anxiety and learning difficulties, we considered they were medicinal claims, and implied that the product had medicinal properties.
The AURA7 supplement was, in general terms, marketed as a food supplement. For the purposes of the legislation reflected in the Code, its prohibition on claims that a food (including food supplements), could prevent, treat, or cure symptoms of human disease included medicinal claims. We therefore concluded the claims to alleviate traits of autism or ASD fell under that prohibition. Additionally, because the ad made medicinal claims for the AURA7 supplement, it was defined as a medicinal product for the purposes of medicines 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 Onecare Wellness did not hold such authorisation for the AURA7 supplement. We concluded the ad was therefore in breach of the Code’s requirements relating both to food supplements and to medicinal products.
While we welcomed Onecare Wellness’ steps to prevent future ads being shown to UK consumers, because the ad stated and implied that the supplement could help prevent, treat or cure traits of autism and co-occurring conditions such as anxiety and learning difficulties, we concluded the ad breached the Code.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 12.1 and 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 defined health claims as those that stated, suggested or implied a relationship between a food or ingredient, and health, and required that only health claims authorised on the applicable register, which in this case was the Great Britain nutrition and health claims register (the GB (NHC) Register), were permitted in marketing communications for foods. Some flexibility could be exercised in rewording authorised claims, provided that the reworded claim was likely to have the same meaning for consumers as the authorised claim. Marketers must also ensure that they met the conditions of use associated with the claims in question.
As referenced above, we considered that in the context of the ad’s references to autism, the claim “Each sachet delivers 8 Billion CFUs of PS23™ psychobiotics and essential nutrients that work through the gut-brain axis, balancing gut microbiota to […] enhance brain function, and promote emotional well-being” would be understood by most consumers as a claim that the product could prevent, treat or cure autism and co-occurring conditions. However, we considered some consumers might understand those claims as not specifically relating to traits of autism or co-occurring conditions, and instead as specific health claims related to cognitive function, emotional wellbeing and gut health.
Onecare had confirmed they would not include references to medical conditions in their future ads, and would instead use authorised specific health claims. We considered that, absent of the wider context of references to autism and co-occurring conditions discussed above, the claims relating to the improvement of cognitive and brain function, and to mood and “emotional well-being”, would be understood to mean that the supplement could, for all consumers, provide a specific beneficial effect on those physiological functions. In that context, the claims would be specific health claims which must be authorised on the GB (NHC) Register.
We additionally considered that while some consumers may not be familiar with the term “psychobiotics”, it related to a specific health benefit. We understood the term was used to describe substances that were purported to enhance cognitive function and emotional wellbeing particularly through the gut-brain connection. We therefore considered that consumers familiar with the term would understand “psychobiotics” as indicating a beneficial effect on cognitive function, mental performance and mood. We therefore considered the claim “psychobiotics” was a specific health claim which must be authorised on the GB (NHC) Register.
We had not seen evidence that there were any authorised claims on the GB (NHC) Register for the product, or its ingredients, which would have the same meaning for consumers as the specific health claim in the ad. We therefore concluded the ad also breached the Code in that regard.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 15.1, 15.1.1 (Food, food supplements and associated health or nutrition claims) and 15.7 (Food supplements and other vitamins and minerals).
Action
The claims must not appear again in their current form. We told Onecare Wellness Ltd t/a Onecare to ensure their advertising did not make claims that food, including food supplements, could prevent, treat or cure conditions that, for the purposes of the Code, fell within the definition of human disease. Specifically, they must not make claims that stated or implied a food supplement could help reduce traits of autism, anxiety and learning difficulties. We also told them not to make medicinal claims for products that were not authorised by the MHRA. We told them not to make health claims for foods or food supplements if they were not authorised on the GB (NHC) Register.
CAP Code (Edition 12)
12.1 12.11 15.1 15.1.1 15.6 15.6.2 15.7
