Background
On 5 January 2026, new rules in the CAP and BCAP Codes on the advertising of “less healthy” food and drink products came into force.
The rules were supported by additional guidance, “Advertising of less healthy food and drink products”, which set out various tests and exemptions relevant to the ASA’s approach to assessing individual ads under the relevant Code rules.
The rules and guidance reflected the requirements of the Communications Act 2003, The Advertising (Less Healthy Food Definitions and Exemptions) Regulations 2024, and The Advertising (Less Healthy Food and Drink) (Brand Advertising Exemption) Regulations 2025.
Ad description
A paid Facebook ad for Papa John’s Pizza, seen on 7 January 2026, stated in the caption “New year, same devotion to the dou… See more”. Clicking “See more” brought up the full caption: “New year, same devotion of the dough. Get a tasty, gooey, saucy pizza from only £10. [pizza slice emoji]”.
An image showed a photo of a 10-slice pizza with mushroom, green pepper, tomato, onion and sweetcorn toppings. Text stated “THE BIG PRICE CUT”, “SMALL PIZZA £10”, “MEDIUM PIZZA £12”, AND “LARGE PIZZA £14”.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the ad was a paid-for ad for an identifiable “less healthy” food product placed on the internet.
Response
Papa John’s (GB) Ltd, t/a Papa Johns confirmed they paid for the ad to appear on Facebook. They said the pizza depicted in the ad was a Garden Party pizza in a large size, with an original crust, cut into ten slices. The Garden Party consisted of tomato sauce, mozzarella, mushrooms, sliced tomatoes and sliced green peppers. The large original crust Garden Party was not high in fat, salt or sugar (HFSS). They provided a nutrient profile calculation to confirm that.
Papa Johns said the Garden Party could be ordered with four different crusts: the original crust as shown in the ad; thin crust; stuffed crust; or wheat-free crust. It could be ordered in a range of sizes for all crust options, except the wheat-free crust which was available in a medium size only. All of those Garden Party options were non-HFSS.
There was also a vegan version of the Garden Party, with thin or original crust options, and in a range of sizes. Those pizzas were all non-HFSS.
Finally, the Vegan Garden Party could also be chosen with a wheat-free crust, which was only available in a medium size. The wheat-free Vegan Garden Party was an HFSS product. However, because it was only available in a medium size, it consisted of eight slices. Papa Johns said its appearance was therefore distinct from the pizza shown in the ad, which had ten slices.
Papa Johns said their website menu photographs used images of large pizzas with original crusts cut into ten slices, and that the range of pizzas shown on their website were distinct from the Garden Party because of the combination of toppings or crust type.
Assessment
Not upheld
The CAP Code required that persons must not pay for ads for an identifiable “less healthy” food or drink product to be placed on the internet.
The ASA firstly noted that Papa Johns had paid for the ad to be placed on the internet.
The test determining whether an ad was covered by the restrictions was set out in law, as reflected in Code rule 15.19. A “less healthy” product was “identifiable”, in relation to ads, if persons in the UK could reasonably be expected to be able to identify the ad as being for that product.
The ad featured a photographic image of a sliced pizza in an open box. It also included the Papa Johns logo and text which stated “New year, same devotion to the dough …”, and referenced “THE BIG PRICE CUT” and the prices of small, medium and large pizzas. In that context, we considered consumers could reasonably be expected to identify that the ad was for a promotion across the Papa Johns pizza range in all sizes and flavours, including the specific pizza depicted in the ad, and including pizzas in the range that were “less healthy” foods.
We noted that brand advertisements (those that promoted a brand, including the brand of a range of products), were exempt from the restrictions in rule 15.19, subject to certain provisions. For example, an ad that depicted a specific “less healthy” product was not a brand advertisement. An ad that included a realistic image of a food or drink itself, out of packaging, where that food or drink was visually indistinguishable from a specific “less healthy” food or drink product, was also not a brand advertisement. A “specific” product was a product that was differentiated from other products, unless it was only differentiated by pack size or packaging format.
The ASA must therefore consider which of the following scenarios applied to the ad:
1. An ad which depicted a specific “less healthy” pizza from the Papa Johns range would be in breach of the “less healthy” food rule.
2. An ad which depicted a specific non “less healthy” pizza from the Papa Johns range, by clearly identifying it as that specific non “less healthy” pizza (for example, by stating its name), would not be in breach of the “less healthy” food rule.
3. If an ad featured a realistic image of a Papa Johns pizza but did not identify which specific pizza it was, we must assess whether the pizza shown in the ad was visually indistinguishable from any specific “less healthy” pizza in the Papa Johns range. That was the case whether the realistic image in the ad was of a “less healthy” pizza, or a non “less healthy” pizza. If it was visually indistinguishable from a “less healthy” pizza, the ad would be in breach of the “less healthy” food rule.
A food or drink was “less healthy” if it met two tests, set out in the rule. Firstly, it must be classified as HFSS according to the Department of Health and Social Care’s Nutrient Profiling Technical Guidance. Secondly, it must also fall within a food or drink category set out in law.
Pizzas fell within the “less healthy” food Category 11, described in law as “Pizza (except plain crusts)”. While the ad did not state which flavour variant was shown, we understood it was the original crust large Garden Party pizza. We understood that all sizes of the Garden Party with an original crust were non-HFSS. The image in the ad was therefore of a pizza that was not classified as “less healthy”; the ad did not depict a specific “less healthy” product. Scenario 1, as referenced above, therefore did not apply. Additionally, the ad did not identify the pizza shown, so scenario 2 also did not apply.
We must therefore assess whether the pizza shown in the ad was visually indistinguishable from any specific “less healthy” pizza sold by Papa Johns, as referenced at scenario 3. The pizza in the ad consisted of tomato sauce, cheese, sliced mushrooms, tomatoes, and green peppers and sweetcorn. The pizza crust in the ad was an even pale brown colour with an edge that appeared thick and rounded. We noted there would be some natural variation between individual pizzas of the same type, for example, in slight variations in the crust or placement of the toppings. We considered it was reasonable for us to take those natural variations into account when assessing whether the pizza in the ad was visually indistinguishable from pizzas sold by Papa Johns.
We then compared the image of the pizza in the ad with images of the range of Papa Johns pizzas shown on the Papa Johns website. We considered the pizza as shown in the ad was visually indistinguishable from an image of the classic crust Garden Party pizza on Papa Johns website.
The majority of the pizzas shown on the website had meat toppings, including pepperoni, chicken, sausage, ground beef and ham. Those meat elements meant the pizzas were distinguishable from the pizza in the ad, even where the meat was placed in combination with some of the same vegetable toppings that were on the pizza in the ad. In addition to a meat topping, some pizzas were also available with a sauce topping, that was not visible on the pizza in the ad. Because meat toppings or a sauce were visible on those pizzas and were not present on the pizza in the ad, we concluded that those pizzas were visually distinguishable.
We then compared images of three vegetarian pizzas; the Hot Pepper Passion, the Cypriot and the Cheese & Tomato. The Hot Pepper Passion included slices of red chillis and jalapeno peppers, while the Cypriot showed black olives and slices of halloumi. None of those toppings were included on the pizza in the ad. The Cheese & Tomato was also visually distinguishable from the pizza in the ad because if included no additional toppings other than melted cheese on top of the tomato sauce.
We then considered the crust variations available for the Garden Party. We understood that the crust depicted in the ad was an original crust and that the Garden Party could alternatively be ordered with a thin crust, stuffed crust, or cheddar stuff crust. We compared the images of those crusts on the website with the crust shown in the ad. The thin crust showed a thinner crust, with less definition, while the two stuffed crust variants had a thicker rounded edge, with cheese visible from the centre of a cut slice. As the ad showed a cut pizza with no visible cheese in the crust, we considered the crust variations for the Garden Party were visually distinguishable from the pizza in the ad.
We finally considered the wheat-free and plant-crust variants of the Garden Party. It was available with the original crust as the Vegan Garden Party, with a wheat-free crust, and as a wheat-free vegan pizza. The image of the Vegan Garden Party on the website included pepper, mushroom sweetcorn and tomato toppings and the crust shown on the website image also appeared evenly rounded. We therefore considered that it was visually indistinguishable from the pizza in the ad. However, we understood that the original crust Vegan Garden Party was a non-HFSS pizza and therefore not classified as “less healthy”. The Garden Party with a wheat-free crust also included identical toppings to those shown on the pizza in the ad. However, comparing the crust on the two wheat-free variants with the pizza in the ad, we considered that the wheat-free crust was thinner and less plump, and that both wheat-free variants were visually distinguishable from the image of the pizza in the ad.
Because the realistic image of the pizza in the ad was not visually indistinguishable from any specific “less healthy” food or drink, we concluded the ad was a brand advertisement. We concluded the ad was therefore out of scope of the rules and did not breach the Code.
We investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 15.19 (Place of less healthy food and drink product advertisements online), but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
