Ad description
Two paid-for Facebook ads for Huel:
a. The first ad, seen on 18 February 2024, featured an image of Huel’s Daily Greens drink with text that stated “‘This is Huel’s best product’ Steven Bartlett”. The caption stated “Ever wondered what Steven Bartlett actually thinks of Huel’s Daily Greens? Well there you have it […]”.
b. The second ad, seen on 19 March 2024, showed two videos side-by-side; one showed Steven Bartlett and the other showed a person looking at their mobile phone. Superimposed text between the videos stated “Is Huel actually nice?”. Bartlett stated, “This is the best product that Huel have released." The ad then cut to video of the person looking at the phone, who stated, “I keep seeing this guy all over the internet talking about Huel" while superimposed text stated “Responding to Steven Bartlett”. They then said, “So let’s give it a try” and a packet of Huel’s Daily Greens powder entered the shot. They were then shown preparing and drinking Huel’s Daily Greens, and stated, “Fair play, Steven, I see your point.” The caption stated “Steven Bartlett said it first […]”.
Issue
The complainants, who understood Steven Bartlett was a director at Huel Ltd, challenged whether the omission of his commercial interest in the company from the ads was misleading.
Response
Huel Ltd confirmed Steven Bartlett was a director at the company. They said the ads appeared in the standard Facebook format and were identifiable as ads due to the use of Facebook’s “Sponsored” labelling features. Additionally, it was clear that Huel was the advertiser due to the presence of their logo, the blue tick that verified the Huel name, their website URL, and the ads’ content.
Huel said that when celebrities endorsed products, consumers generally understood they did so in the context of a commercial relationship with the company behind the product. Consumers had no doubt about the existence of such commercial relationships when they saw the endorsement within a paid-for ad taken out by a company. This expectation then removed the need for the commercial relationship to be explicitly stated, and that this was the case regardless of the exact nature of the relationship.
Huel said Steven Bartlett was a well-known celebrity, entrepreneur, and investor. He had appeared regularly on the BBC’s Dragon’s Den programme, had 3.5 million followers on Instagram, a podcast with 6 million subscribers, and had published a Sunday Times bestselling book. They said Bartlett had invested in Huel as he liked their products. Huel had announced this on their website and YouTube channel, and this had received coverage in the media.
Assessment
Upheld
The CAP Code stated that marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. Material information was information that the consumer needed to make informed decisions in relation to a product.
The ASA considered the ads were obviously identifiable as marketing communications and that Steven Bartlett would have been known to many consumers through his appearances as a “Dragon” on “Dragons’ Den” and his other business-related enterprises. We understood that on Dragons’ Den he provided opinions on businesses and did not invest in most of them.
The ads appeared on Huel’s own Facebook account. Ad (a) stated “‘This is Huel’s best product’ Steven Bartlett”. Ad (b) included a clip of Steven Bartlett who stated, “This is the best product that Huel have released” and included an actor who said, “I keep seeing this guy all over the internet talking about Huel,” in reference to Bartlett, and “Fair play, Steven, I see your point”. We considered that many consumers would interpret the ads as featuring a testimonial from Steven Bartlett about one of Huel’s products.
Steven Bartlett held a position as a director at Huel. We acknowledged Huel’s comments and agreed that some consumers might have thought that the ads were part of a commercial relationship with Steven Bartlett. However, many consumers were unlikely to understand from the ads that Steven Bartlett had a financial interest in Huel’s performance. We considered that Bartlett’s directorship was material to consumers’ understanding of the ads, and so relevant for them in making an informed decision about the advertised product.
Because the ads omitted material information about Steven Bartlett’s position as a director at Huel, we concluded they were likely to mislead.
The ads breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising).
Action
The ads must not appear again in the form complained about. We told Huel Ltd to ensure that future ads did not misleadingly omit material information regarding commercial relationships.
