The growing popularity of weight-loss drugs has thrown up some interesting issues. On the one hand, they seem to offer at least a partial solution to the burgeoning obesity crisis, which has ballooned despite the government constantly tightening the belt of food advertising regulation. There has also been some research which suggests that these drugs may have other collateral benefits. On the other hand, there are reports of people suffering serious side effects, particularly when they have used the drugs without medical supervision.
Last week (on 11th April 2025), the Committee on Advertising Practice (CAP) published a joint Enforcement Notice with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) which confirms that ads for named weight-loss prescription-only medicines (POMs) are prohibited, including online, on social media and by influencers. Furthermore, the notice says that any remaining ads must be removed immediately.
Examples include ads for Ozempic, Wegovy (semaglutide), Saxenda (liraglutide). But it is interesting that, for the purposes of this notice, CAP has focused on the most egregious infringements of both the CAP Code and the Human Medicines Regulations 2012, being those ads that actually name a specific POM, by reference to either its brand name or the name of its active ingredients.
Investigatory work
The ASA has also issued a wider update about its work in this area. It has been using its AI-based Active Ad Monitoring system to find weight-loss POM ads, so it doesn't have to wait for people to complain to it before it can find and deal with problematic ads. Back in December 2024, it issued a warning to businesses and individuals who were targeting members of the public with ads for weight-loss POMs. At that time, however, the ASA went wider than just ads that named weight-loss drugs, claiming that references to 'skinny jabs' and 'flab jabs' also break the existing rules. It is rather less clear whether such references breach Rule 12.12 of the CAP Code, which states that "Prescription-only medicines or prescription-only medical treatments may not be advertised to the public."
This may explain why the ASA has also launched 12 investigations into whether ads are promoting weight-loss POMs, and which are still ongoing. They all focus on online ads, which is where the ASA has observed the vast majority of problems. The investigations concern common approaches seen in weight-loss POM ads and include paid-for online ads and affiliate and influencer marketing. They are likely to focus on issues such as the use of images of unbranded weight-loss pens, used to inject POMs, as well as terms such as 'skinny jabs'.
The Enforcement Notice also says that advertising for consultations about weight-loss are acceptable, but warns against indirectly advertising POMs. For illustration, it provides a link to an adjudication against Juniper Technologies. That adjudication is a little opaque in its drafting, but it seems that while the YouTube video did not name a POM, and seems to have been promoting a consultation, rather than a specific POM, it contained a link to Juniper's website which did make an express reference to Ozempic (semaglutide). It's well established that if a TV ad includes a reference to the advertiser's website, then claims on the landing page may be treated as if they are part of the ad by the ASA.
Ad monitoring
As part of its AI ad monitoring, the ASA found around 1,800 unique paid-for weight-loss ads from December 2024 and January 2025 which it identified as potentially advertising a POM. Around 25% of those ads featured a named medication; some of which included a POM, which is in clear breach of the CAP Code.
At the same time, CAP contacted 20 advertisers who were featuring named weight-loss POMs. A follow-up in early March, which involved reviewing around 600 ads identified as potentially advertising a POM, found that 25% of those 20 advertisers were still using named weight-loss POMs in their ads, but that most other ads featuring named weight-loss POMs had not been published for some time.
This is only one snapshot of data, but the trend appears to be that ads featuring named weight-loss POMs have reduced in volume and that most advertisers have taken notice of warnings from regulators. CAP says that it will continue to investigate this area and repeat offenders will be referred to regulatory partners, such as the MHRA and GPhC.
What's next?
The ASA will publish formal rulings once those 12 investigations are complete, which will (hopefully) provide further clarity about what is acceptable. In particular, we can hope for greater clarity about what is considered to be 'indirect promotion' of a POM. Knowing the ASA's healthy appetite for taking jurisdiction over ads that they perceive to be harmful, we anticipate they will gorge themselves with an 'all-you-can-eat' approach to defining the scope of 'indirect promotion'.
Following the publication of those decisions, the Enforcement Notice will be updated to reflect the findings.
The ASA is also continuing to monitor the sector and may launch further investigations.
Meanwhile, in another part of the forest, the ASA is busy finalizing its guidance about advertising for Less Healthy Foods. This is due to be published in May, but appears to have become a bit lost, proposing a ban on brand advertising, which has then triggered a written statement from the government to say that was not the intention of the legislation. Maybe if the LHF ban is as successful as its proponents would like, advertising for weight-loss drugs will wither on the vine, as the nation adopts a more healthy diet and lifestyle.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
