Background
This Ruling forms part of a wider piece of work on food supplements that made medical and health claims for weight loss. The ads were identified for investigation following intelligence gathering by our Active Ad Monitoring system, which uses AI to proactively search for online ads that might break the rules.
Update to Advertising Codes (7 April 2025):
On 7 April 2025, the Advertising Codes were updated to reflect the revocation and restatement of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs – the legislation from which the majority of the CAP and BCAP rules on misleading advertising derived) by the Unfair Commercial Practices provisions in the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA).
On that date, the wording of a number of the rules in the Advertising Codes was changed to reflect relevant changes introduced by the DMCCA on 6 April 2025. Given that the complaint that formed the subject of this ruling was received before 7 April 2025, the ASA considered the ad(s) and complaint under the wording of the rules that existed prior to 7 April 2025, and the Ruling (and references to rules within it) should therefore be read in line with this wording, available here – CAP Code and BCAP Code.
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
Two paid-for Meta ads for Ovira, a food supplement company, seen in February 2025:
a. One Meta ad featured an image of a container labelled “Curb Crave” with a “WARNING” sign. Text in a caption stated, “Ozempic works, but 20-50% of weight loss is muscle. Is this $1/day solution better? Unlike Ozempic, Curb Crave: Helps preserve lean muscle mass as you lose weight Supports healthy digestion instead of disrupting it Keeps your face looking youthful and vibrant And won’t cost you $1,000 a month like most GLP-1 injections do.” Further text at the bottom of the ad stated “The FASTEST Way To Eliminate Sugar Cravings. Doctor-Approved Solution to Achieve Rapid Fat Loss. Food Craving Control Naturally Feel Full Faster […]”.
b. The second Meta ad featured two images of a cartoon-style woman. In the first she had healthy skin, pink lips and brown hair. Underneath were the words “CURB CRAVE”. In the second she was pale with wrinkles, thin lips and grey hair. Under that image was the word “OZEMP*C”. Text in a caption stated, “‘I was close on [sic] getting on prescription weight loss medication but decided to give these a try and I am amazed. I take them first thing in the morning on an empty stomach. I Notice [sic] a good energy boost from them which is a plus for me. I hardly get hungry throughout the day so I started taking multivitamins and protein shakes to get some kind of nutrition. If you want to stop putting away the sweet stuff, try this product. It works.’ – Nicole F”. The ad featured a link to a website.
Issue
The ASA challenged whether the:
- ads implied that the products had the same medicinal effects as GLP-1 agonist medications, such as Ozempic;
- specific health claims were authorised on the Great Britain nutrition and health claims register (GB Register); and
- health professional endorsement/recommendation “Doctor-Approved Solution to Achieve Rapid Fat Loss” in ad (a) breached the Code.
Response
Ovira Australia t/a Ovira said that they were reviewing their marketing and considering how to align their campaigns with standards expected in the UK. That included a review of their guidelines and approval processes, and the possibility of an additional step specifically to ensure compliance with UK advertising standards.
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 authorised by the MHRA or under the auspices of the EMA. Medicines must have an authorisation from the MHRA or under the auspices of the EMA before they were marketed.
The ASA considered that claims relating to a supplement having an effect on GLP-1 production were medicinal claims that suggested an efficacy comparison to GLP-1 injections, which were a class of prescription-only medicines (POMs) used for weight loss. In the context of claims regarding GLP-1, we considered that product claims to reduce hunger or cravings would also be understood as medicinal by presentation.
We considered the following claims in ad (a) implied that the product had the same effects as GLP-1 POMs, used for their weight-loss effects, and therefore were medicinal claims: “Ozempic works, but 20-50% of weight loss is muscle. Is this $1/day solution better? Unlike Ozempic, Curb Crave: Helps preserve lean muscle mass as you lose weight Supports healthy digestion instead of disrupting it Keeps your face looking youthful and vibrant And won’t cost you $1,000 a month like most GLP-1 injections do”; “The FASTEST Way To Eliminate Sugar Cravings”; and “Food Craving Control”.
We considered the following claims in ad (b) implied that the product had the same effects as GLP-1 POMs, used for their weight-loss effects, and therefore were medicinal claims: “CURB CRAVE”; “OZEMP*C”; and “‘I was close on [sic] getting on prescription weight loss medication but decided to give these a try and I am amazed. […] I hardly get hungry throughout the day […] It works”.
We also reviewed the claims “Helps preserve lean muscle mass as you lose weight Supports healthy digestion instead of disrupting it Keeps your face looking youthful and vibrant” in ad (a). We considered that in the context of an ad that made references to GLP-1 injections and Ozempic, and consequentially made a comparison with POMs used for weight loss, those claims were also medicinal claims.
We reviewed the claim “I Notice [sic] a good energy boost from them” in ad (b). Ad (b) alluded to the GLP-1 agonist medication Ozempic and consequentially made a comparison with POMs used for weight loss. We considered that in this context the claim was also a medicinal claim.
The claims implied that the product, which was marketed as a food supplement, had medicinal properties. We understood that such claims were, for the purposes of the legislation reflected in the Code, prohibited claims that a food could prevent, treat or cure human disease. Additionally, because the ad made medicinal claims for the product, it was defined as a medicinal product by presentation for the purposes of the medicines legislation reflected in the Code. However, we had not seen evidence that the advertiser held the necessary authorisation.
Because the ads implied that a food supplement could prevent, treat or cure human disease, and featured claims that a product had medicinal properties without the necessary authorisation, we concluded that they breached the Code.
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 further required that health claims were only permitted in marketing communications for food or food supplements if they were authorised on the GB Register. That included any health claims that were made in product names. Health claims were claims that stated, suggested or implied a relationship between a food or ingredient, and health. Any authorised health claims made in an ad must meet the associated conditions of use.
As referenced above, we considered that in the context of the ads’ references to weight loss and GLP-1, the claims “Helps preserve lean muscle mass as you lose weight Supports healthy digestion instead of disrupting it Keeps your face looking youthful and vibrant” in ad (a) and “I Notice [sic] a good energy boost from them” in ad (b) would be understood by consumers as claims that the product could prevent, treat or cure human disease.
We considered that if those claims had been presented in isolation, absent of the wider context of references to GLP-1 injections or Ozempic, they would be understood as specific health claims that the product could help preserve lean muscle mass during weight loss, support healthy digestion, keep faces looking youthful and vibrant, and provide an energy boost.
We also considered that the product’s name “Curb Crave” would be understood as a specific health claim, that the product could curb food cravings.
However, we had not seen any evidence which demonstrated that any of the specific health claims were authorised on the GB Register in relation to the product or any of its ingredients. Therefore, we concluded that those claims breached the Code.
On that point, ads (a) and (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 15.1, 15.1.1, and 15.7 (Food, food supplements and associated health or nutrition claims).
3. Upheld
The CAP Code stated that health claims that referred to the recommendation of an individual health professional were not acceptable in marketing communications for food supplements. The Code also stated that marketers must not use health professionals or celebrities to endorse medicines. We considered that, by referring to the product as “doctor-approved”, ad (a) breached the Code.
On that point, ad (a) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 12.18 (Medicines, medical devices health-related products and beauty products) and 15.6.3 (Food, food supplements and associated health or nutrition claims).
Action
The ads must not appear again in the form investigated. We told Ovira Australia t/a Ovira not to claim that a food supplement could prevent, treat or cure human disease, or make medicinal claims for a product that did not have the necessary authorisation. That included that they must not state that a food supplement could impact GLP-1 production or provide other effects associated with prescription-only medicines used for weight loss. We told them not to make specific health claims unless they were authorised on the GB Register, including through product names. We also told them to ensure they did not use health professionals to endorse medicines or food supplements.
