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 TikTok post by influencer Isabella Hill for Walkers Baked Crisps, seen on 11 June 2026, showed Ms Hill preparing a “lunch snack plate”. She constructed a sandwich from a baguette and in the voice-over listed the ingredients as butter, mini salamis, burrata, pepper and rocket. She held up a packet of Walkers Oven Baked Sea Salt crisps to the camera and said, “I love putting the Walkers Oven Baked crisps in there […] these are my go-to lunch crisps because they’re baked not fried […]”. She added hummus, celery and olives to the plate. She then said, “And for something sweet, I have got some strawberries – look at this platter! – some blueberries and then I’ve also got some chocolate”. Four chocolate balls were placed at the front of the plate. Ms Hill commented “Oops, I’ve got it in the hummus!” She rotated the plate so that the chocolates were partially visible and said, “And here is my ultimate lunch snack plate […]” before biting into the sandwich and eating some crisps with olives, saying “I love eating crisps with other food”. In the final scene Ms Hill was shown on the beach and said she had come there to finish her “crisp sandwich”.
The on-screen caption, visible throughout, stated “AD was so good I had to enjoy these @Walkers Crisps Baked slices of joy on the beach”.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the ad was a paid-for ad for an identifiable less healthy food product placed on the internet.
Response
Walkers Snacks Ltd t/a Walkers said Ms Hill had been engaged through one of their marketing agencies as part of an influencer marketing campaign. They had paid for the placement of the TikTok post and retained the right to approve the content before it was published.
Walkers said the ad promoted Walkers Oven Baked Sea Salt crisps, which was the only branded product that was expressly identified. The ad showed the packet clearly, the Walkers brand was tagged, and Ms Hill referred to the product throughout the video and in the on-screen caption. The focus was on Ms Hill’s enjoyment of the product, including its use in a crisp sandwich and as part of a lunch plate. Walkers provided a nutrient profile calculation which showed the product was not high in fat, salt or sugar (HFSS) and therefore was not a “less healthy” food product for the purposes of CAP Code rule 15.19.
Walkers said the other foods shown in the ad, namely the sandwich ingredients and the other items on the lunch plate, were unbranded and appeared only in order to provide a natural context for the crisps and to show how the product might be eaten as part of a lunch occasion. None of those items was identifiable as a specific product or accompanied by promotional messaging. They believed the only item which might fall within a less healthy food category was the chocolate. However, it was referred to only as “some chocolate” and was not shown with packaging, branding or other distinguishing features that would enable consumers to identify it as a specific purchasable product.
Ms Hill confirmed that the ad formed part of a paid commercial partnership with Walkers and had been submitted for review and approval before publication. She had been provided with the Walkers product for the purposes of creating the content, and no other products or services had been supplied to her as an incentive in connection with the post.
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 understood that Walkers 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 showed Ms Hill preparing a “lunch snack plate”. As she assembled the plate, she held up a packet of Walkers Oven Baked Sea Salt crisps to the camera for several seconds and said, “I love putting the Walkers Oven Baked crisps in there […] these are my go-to lunch crisps because they’re baked not fried”. She later ate some of the crisps and said, “I love eating crisps with other food”. The caption also referred to “@Walkers Crisps”. Walkers Oven Baked Sea Salt crisps was the only branded product shown and named. Given the ad’s focus on the crisps, including the repeated verbal references to them, the prominent shot of the packet and Ms Hill eating them, we considered consumers could reasonably be expected to identify that the ad was for Walkers and the Walkers Oven Baked crisps brands generally, and more specifically the Sea Salt variety.
We then considered whether consumers could reasonably be expected to identify that the ad was additionally for any of the other foods shown. Ms Hill referred to the foods on the plate as she added them, namely a baguette, butter, mini salamis, burrata, pepper, rocket, hummus, celery, olives, strawberries, blueberries and chocolate. We considered consumers were likely to understand those references as a general description of the contents of the snack plate, rather than as highlighting specific products. In contrast to the crisps, each of the foods was presented to the camera for a short time only. Each food was mentioned only briefly as part of describing the plate, referred to by generic type rather than identified by brand or product name, and no claims were made about any of them. We therefore considered that consumers could not reasonably be expected to identify that the ad was for any of the featured foods other than the crisps.
We assessed whether Walkers Oven Baked Sea Salt crisps was a “less healthy” food.
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.
Walkers Oven Baked Sea Salt Crisps fell within the “less healthy” food Category 2, which was described in law as “Savoury snacks, including crisps”. However, we understood it was not an HFSS product. Ads for that product were therefore not restricted by the “less healthy” food rule.
We therefore considered the ad did not depict a specific less healthy food product.
We concluded that the ad was not a paid-for ad for an identifiable less healthy food product placed on the internet.
We investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 15.19 (Placement of less healthy food and drink product advertisements online), but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action required.
