Online adverts for nutrition brands Huel and Zoe featuring Dragons’ Den star Steven Bartlett have been banned after they failed to disclose his involvement in the firms.
The sponsored posts on Facebook, which appeared on users’ newsfeeds in February and March, included quotes from the celebrity entrepreneur praising the companies’ products.
The Zoe advert featured a photo of Bartlett alongside the words: “If you haven’t tried Zoe yet, give it a shot. It might just change your life.”
One of the Huel ads included a quote from him describing the brand’s Daily Greens powder as its “best product”. A second post featured a video clip in which the star made similar comments.
However, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said it should have been made clear that Bartlett had a vested interest because he is an investor in Zoe and a director at Huel.
The regulator pointed out that his appearances on the BBC show Dragons’ Den regularly showed him providing “opinions on businesses” which, in most cases, he did not invest in.
The ASA said “many consumers” were unlikely to realise from the adverts that he had a commercial relationship with the brands and suggested social media users may have thought he was giving an endorsement from an unbiased perspective.
It therefore ruled that the two adverts for Huel and one for Zoe were misleading or likely to mislead consumers.
Commenting on the Huel posts, the ASA said: “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.”
Regarding the Zoe advert, the regulator said: “Because the ad omitted material information about Steven Bartlett being an investor in Zoe, we concluded that it was misleading.”
Read more from business:
£10m spent on Euros final beer
‘Electricity super highway’ approved
Surprise fall in unemployment rate
A Zoe spokesperson told Sky News it believed its ad had been clearly marked and was compliant with the rules.
They added: “Neither the [advertising] code nor any of the ASA’s guidance suggests that it is necessary to go into granular detail about the precise nature of an ambassador’s commercial relationship with a brand…
“We respect the ASA’s work in upholding transparency in online advertising and have provided a written assurance that it will not appear again in that form. We would welcome further guidance to bring clarity on the effect of this decision”.
In its response to the ASA, Huel defended its adverts by arguing that consumers “generally understood” that when celebrities endorsed products they did so “in the context of a commercial relationship”.
The ASA ordered that none of the ads should appear again and asked the brands to ensure future posts “did not misleadingly omit material information regarding commercial relationships”.