“Less healthy” products and the brand advertising exemption in the UK: lessons from the ASA's KFC ruling

Why should I read this?

The recent ruling of the Advertising Standard Agency (ASA) on KFC’s “Double Deal” advertising gives food and drink brands an early indication of how the UK’s new HFSS advertising restrictions will be applied in practice. Although the complaints were not upheld, the decision shows that the ASA will scrutinise not only the products expressly promoted in an ad, but also brief or incidental product imagery and whether any featured items are visually indistinguishable from less healthy products. For advertisers, the ruling is a useful reminder that HFSS compliance needs to be considered early and be supported by clear evidence.

What happened?

In early January 2026, shortly after the new rules took effect, KFC ran a series of advertisements, a TV ad, a Video on Demand (VOD) ad on All4, and three paid-for social media ads, promoting its “Double Deal” meal offer. The ads featured imagery of KFC's Fillet Burger and Pepsi Max, and the TV and VOD versions also briefly showed breaded chicken pieces (identified by KFC as its Mini Fillets product) frying in oil in a brief, scene-setting shot lasting less than a second. The ASA received 28 complaints from members of the public challenging whether the ads were for identifiable less healthy food products.

What was KFC's position?

KFC argued that the products actually depicted in the ads, the Fillet Burger, Pepsi Max, and Mini Fillets, were all non-HFSS products and therefore were not classified as “less healthy” foods. KFC provided nutrient profiling data to support this position. With respect to the brief shot of breaded chicken frying, KFC contended that the average consumer would not identify the ads as being for Mini Fillets, since the creative and narrative focus was directed entirely at the Fillet Burgers and Pepsi Max, and the Mini Fillets appeared only as brief, contextual scene-setting at the outset of the ads. KFC also argued that the frying footage showed mid-preparation food rather than a final purchasable product.

How did the ASA approach the case?

The ASA applied the identifiability test across three scenarios. It accepted that the products explicitly featured in the ads, the Fillet Burger, Pepsi Max, and Mini Fillets, were all non-HFSS products and therefore were not “less healthy”. However, the ASA went further and considered whether those products were “visually indistinguishable” from other products on KFC's menu that might be classified as less healthy. The ASA concluded that the Zinger Burger, which was visually indistinguishable from the Fillet Burger shown in the ads, was also non-HFSS, and therefore the ads did not fall foul of the rules on that basis. Similarly, the ASA assessed the breaded chicken pieces and determined that the only comparable product, KFC's Boneless Chicken, was in fact the same food as Mini Fillets and was also non-HFSS. Crucially, the ASA also found that the ads qualified as “brand advertisements” and were therefore exempt from the restrictions in any event, because the realistic images of burgers, cola drinks, and breaded chicken were not visually indistinguishable from any specific less healthy food or drink product.

What did the ASA decide?

The ASA did not uphold any of the complaints. The ads were found to be out of scope of the less healthy product rules and not in breach of CAP Code rule 15.19 (online), BCAP Code rule 32.21 (TV scheduling), or CAP Code rule 30.16 (on-demand services).

Practical Takeaways

The ruling highlights several important lessons for any food and beverage business operating under the new regime:

• The “identifiability” test is applied rigorously and in the round. The ASA does not simply look at what a company says its ad is promoting; it considers what a reasonable consumer would identify the ad as being for, and whether the products depicted are visually indistinguishable from specific less healthy items in the company's range. For businesses selling both HFSS and non-HFSS variants within the same brand family, this means careful attention must be paid to what appears on screen and whether visual ambiguity could draw an entire ad into scope.

• Nutrient profiling data is your first line of defence. KFC's defence rested heavily on its ability to demonstrate, with supporting nutritional data, that every product depicted was non-HFSS. Food and beverage businesses should ensure that up-to-date nutrient profile scores are maintained for every product and that these are readily available to marketing and agency teams when ads are being developed.

• The brand advertising exemption is valuable, but has limits. Brand-level advertising is exempt from the restrictions, but only if the ad does not depict any specific less healthy product or feature a realistic image that is visually indistinguishable from one.

• Even brief or incidental product shots can attract scrutiny. The Mini Fillets shown for less than a second in the KFC ads still formed a key part of the ASA's analysis. Businesses and agencies should assume that any product imagery, however fleeting, could be examined for compliance.

• Enforcement is complaint-driven, and public attention is high. The KFC ads attracted 28 complaints within the first weeks of the new rules taking effect. The new regulations have high public visibility, and the ASA is clearly willing to conduct detailed investigations, even where the ultimate finding is no breach. The reputational dimension of an ASA investigation alone is worth bearing in mind.