The British advertising regulator has taken action once again against Huel for misleading promotional claims. This represents the third ruling against Huel’s advertising practices in two months. The specific issue involved an Instagram post that made unsubstantiated claims regarding health benefits and pricing. Despite providing evidence for its pricing claims, Huel failed to substantiate their health claims adequately. The ruling follows a similar case involving Steven Bartlett’s endorsement.
The British Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) has issued another ruling against the meal supplement company Huel, marking the third such incident within two months. This action was taken due to a promotional Instagram post that allegedly contained misleading information regarding the product’s health benefits and cost-effectiveness compared to fruits and vegetables.
The post featured Julian Hearn, the founder of Huel, claiming that their product offered a comparable or superior alternative to greens, along with substantial cost savings. He stated, “You’ve been told your whole life to eat greens and a lot of people can’t get that amount of greens into their diet … we’ve taken a very broad range of greens, so you get a product which is equally good, or in my eyes better, but you get it substantially cheaper.”
The ASA particularly criticised the comparison made between Huel’s offerings and fresh produce, as well as the assertion that their product was “substantially cheaper.” The agency found these claims lacked sufficient substantiation, despite Huel’s efforts to provide evidence supporting their cost claims.
In response, Huel explained that the Instagram advertisement had been edited to a shorter version due to an error, which led to the misleading comparisons appearing more prominently. The company maintained that the original advertisement drew comparisons with an entirely different market segment, specifically targeting leading daily greens products rather than fresh vegetables.
Nevertheless, Huel acknowledged that while they could substantiate certain claims about the essential nutrients provided by their meal supplement, the blanket assertion of their product being “gut-friendly” was inadequately supported.
This recent ruling adds to Huel’s challenges, as an earlier decision in August found another advertisement featuring endorsement from Steven Bartlett misleading, primarily because it failed to disclose his role as an investor and director within the company. This incident echoes a similar occurrence involving another Bartlett-backed entity, Zoe Health, earlier this year.
The continued scrutiny by regulatory bodies highlights significant challenges in advertising compliance for Huel.
