The UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has upheld three complaints against children’s supplement brand ShroomIQ. The ruling underscores the ASA’s closer scrutiny of the supplements sector, particularly where marketing intersects with sensitive areas such as children’s health and neurodivergent conditions. In December 2025 the advertising watchdog censured supplement companies in a string of rulings on autism and ADHD messaging.
The latest ruling concerned content on ShroomIQ’s website and a paid-for Facebook ad promoting its “SuperShrooms for Kids” gummy supplement. The ASA investigation, prompted by complaints from a neurodivergence specialist, examined four issues—three of which were upheld, while a fourth was resolved informally after the advertiser agreed to amend its approach.
At the heart of the ruling were claims implying the product could alleviate symptoms associated with conditions including ADHD, anxiety, Tourette Syndrome and depression. The ASA found that customer testimonials referencing improvements in focus, patience and emotional regulation—alongside mentions of specific conditions—would lead consumers to interpret the supplement as capable of treating or managing those disorders. The watchdog concluded that such messaging constituted prohibited medicinal claims.
The ASA also took issue with the broader context of the advertising, including references to “neurodivergent children” and a “studies” page citing research into ingredients linked to neurological and mental health outcomes. Disclaimers stating that results may vary or that studies were not product-specific were deemed insufficient by the ASA to counter the overall impression of efficacy against medical conditions.
A second finding related to unauthorised or exaggerated health claims. While the product contained nutrients such as zinc—permitted to carry limited claims like contributing to normal cognitive function—the ASA ruled that phrases including “brain support”, “calm, mood and confidence” and “daily focus support” went beyond the scope of authorised wording on the health claims register. Claims tied to ingredients such as Lion’s Mane and saffron were also considered problematic, as no authorised health claims currently exist for those substances.
The third upheld issue concerned the use of apparent expert endorsements. The website featured a “Meet the Experts” section with individuals presented as doctors and specialists offering supportive quotes about the product. Even though a disclaimer noted that some imagery and identities were AI-generated, the ASA considered that consumers would still interpret the content as health professional endorsement—something explicitly prohibited for food supplements and medicines under UK advertising codes.
In response, ShroomIQ’s parent company, Birling Shore Ltd, said it had removed references to medical conditions, tightened its approach to health claims and withdrawn all expert endorsements.
The ASA said the ads must not appear again in their current form.