Background
This ruling forms part of a wider piece of work on prescription-only medicines (POMs) used for weight loss. This ad was identified for investigation following a complaint received. See also related rulings published on 9 July 2025, 17 December 2025, 11 February 2026, 18 February 2026, 8 April 2026, 27 May 2026 and 24 June 2026.
Ad description
A paid-for Facebook ad by Morrisons, seen on 2 February 2026, included text that stated “Morrisons Clinic weight loss service. From £79 a month, get access to our UK team of experts for monthly check-ins, ensuring you feel safe and supported on your weight loss journey”.
The ad featured an image which featured the text “Why pay more for weight loss? Morrisons Clinic Together with phlo £79. Market average weight loss service £103”. A button featured the text “Start today”.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the ad breached the Code because it promoted prescription-only medicines (POMs) to the public.
Response
Phlo Technologies Ltd t/a Morrisons Clinic and Wm Morrison Supermarkets Ltd t/a Morrisons said the ad promoted a weight management service rather than POMs. It referred to clinical support and the starting price only and did not name or show any medicines. They believed the landing page also contained general service information only, and that casual browsers were therefore not exposed to POM content.They said users then had to choose a further route. The “Get started” page remained focused on the service, while the “I’d like to switch treatments” page, which included named treatments and pricing, was reached only after an active user choice and formed part of a more specific pathway linked to clinical assessment, rather than part of the ad.
Morrisons and Morrisons Clinic said the journey was not a simple click-through from the ad to POM content, but was a structured and conditional interaction. They sought to interpret available guidance in a manner consistent with the principle of ensuring that casual browsers were not exposed to POMs.
Assessment
Upheld
The CAP Code stated that POMs or prescription-only medical treatments must not be advertised to the public.
The ASA understood that Chapter seven of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency’s (MHRA) ‘The Blue Guide’ stated that a website home page should focus on medical conditions and the service the website provided and not include any reference to named POMs. It said that links and navigation aids may be given for particular conditions and diseases, but not be specific to POMs. The guidance said that further pages about the condition, which consumers chose to access, may contain non-promotional information on specific medicines provided that was presented in the context of a fair overview of the treatment options.
We understood that landing pages from paid-for ads on social media were akin to a home page, for the purposes of the MHRA’s Blue Guide. We acknowledged that the ad clicked through to an initial webpage with two options, “Get started” and “I’d like to switch treatments”. We considered this initial page was not the landing page, rather a filtering page that directed consumers to a landing page akin to a home page, based on their selection.
The landing page accessed from the ad via the “Get started” option on the filtering page contained information about the service. However, part-way down the page was a reference to “At-home, self-injectable pen designed to aid weight loss when injected once-weekly and used consistently” under the heading “What is included?”. We understood that all injectable forms of weight-loss medication were POMs and therefore considered the reference to “self-injectable pen” was an implied reference to a POM. That page also included part-way down an image of an order confirmation displayed on a phone which included the text “Treatment: Mounjaro KwikPen 5mg. 1 pre-filled disposable injection supply”. We understood that Mounjaro (tirzepatide) was a POM.
The landing page accessed from the ad via the “I’d like to switch treatments” option on the filtering page featured a comparison between Mounjaro (tirzepatide) and Wegovy (semaglutide), both of which were POMs.
We considered that consumers who had clicked on either option on the filtering page from the ad (“Get started” or “I’d like to switch treatments”) were actively presented with POMs, as opposed to information about particular conditions and diseases. We therefore considered that because the landing pages linked to from the ad, via a filtering page, referenced POMs, the ad promoted POMs to the public.
We sought advice from the MHRA. They expressed concern that the ad was likely to lead to the use of a POM.
For those reasons, we considered 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 Phlo Technologies Ltd t/a Morrisons Clinic and Wm Morrison Supermarkets Ltd t/a Morrisons not to promote POMs to the public in future.
