BetterYou says it will challenge a ruling this week by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) over a consumer experience claim used in its marketing of its Vitamin D3 and K2 daily Oral Spray.

BetterYou CEO and founder, Andrew Thomas, told Natural Newsdesk of his frustration at the way the advertising watchdog had “moved the goalposts” during its investigation and a process which he said “reflected a lack of understanding of the type of science that is so important to the supplement industry”. 

The ASA’s ruling centred on a magazine ad published in the January 2026 edition of Waitrose & Partners’ Food magazine, which featured the statement ‘95% agreed it delivers Vitamin D quickly and efficiently’ alongside an image of the product. A footnote explained that the figure was “based on an independent consumer trial of 245 participants using the product daily for six weeks”, while additional copy promoted “oral sprays that deliver fast effective nutrition absorption”.

A complainant challenged whether the headline claim that the product delivered vitamin D “quickly and efficiently” was misleading and capable of substantiation.

In response to the investigation, BetterYou told the ASA that the claim reflected consumers’ experience of its oral spray delivery system rather than a direct scientific assertion about absorption.

The company supplied details of an independent market research undertaken by the agency MSI-ACI, involving 245 participants who had used the product for six weeks. As part of an online survey, respondents were asked why they might purchase the product in future, with 95% selecting the option stating that “it delivers vitamins quickly and efficiently”.

BetterYou also submitted supporting documentation on the research methodology, explaining that participants had been screened to ensure they were regular vitamin or supplement users and likely purchasers of the product. In addition, the company provided several scientific studies and clinical papers which it believed substantiated the claim that the oral spray delivered vitamin D “quickly and efficiently”.

But the ASA concluded that the wording of the ad would be interpreted by consumers as an objective claim about the product’s physiological performance rather than a statement of opinion.

In particular, the ASA considered that the combination of “delivers Vitamin D quickly and efficiently” with the accompanying phrase “oral sprays that deliver fast effective nutrition absorption” would lead readers to understand that the product enabled vitamin D to be absorbed into the body rapidly and efficiently.

In view of this, the ASA said the claim required robust scientific substantiation based on objective measurements of delivery and absorption “rather than anecdotal reports based on consumer experience alone”. 

The ASA then examined the clinical evidence submitted by BetterYou but considered that none of the studies sufficiently substantiated the specific claim being made.

Having reviewed the studies the ASA said it accepted that the evidence provided showed oral vitamin D sprays could effectively increase vitamin D levels in the body, acknowledging that one study showed oral sprays to be more effective at doing this than soft capsules. But it concluded that none of the submitted research demonstrated that the product delivered vitamin D “quickly” or enabled “fast absorption”.

It therefore ruled that the headline claim “95% agreed it delivers Vitamin D quickly and efficiently” was misleading because it lacked adequate substantiation for the implied physiological benefit.

The ASA said the advertisement was found to breach Rules 3.1 and 3.7 of the CAP Code relating to misleading advertising and substantiation. It has told BetterYou not to repeat the advertisement in its current form and advised the company not to make claims suggesting its product delivers vitamin D quickly or provides faster absorption into the body unless supported by sufficiently robust scientific evidence.

Moving the goalposts
Talking to Natural Newsdesk, BetterYou’s Andrew Thomas said: “The ASA’s argument was initially about the consumer research undertaken. It was on a very respectable sized cohort of over 245 adults and so compared favourably to most consumer stats used in advertising. Once we provided the evidence for that they moved their challenge to one of actual efficacy. We then provided an example of proof of concept which was an in vitro study by Cardiff University and then two further in vivo studies. The ASA then stated that the in vitro study could not be used as support due to the fact it was not on humans and the two in vivo studies were considered too small to be representative of a general population.

“My frustration here is the moving of the goal posts. The consumer study was undertaken perfectly and clearly represented consumer experience. Then to move their challenge to our efficacy science was quite simply not reflective of the initial ‘complaint’. It certainly reflects the ASA’s lack of understanding of the type of science that is so important to the supplement industry. BetterYou benefits from 19 clinical studies, all undertaken on production products, not simply isolated ingredients. Our studies contain peer-reviewed, double-blinded and placebo designed trials, considered gold-standard in any industry. The ASA substantiated the evidence of efficacy. They are ruling against independently researched consumer experience which doesn’t seem right. Some of these have been undertaken by third parties using our products and others have been funded by ourselves, but each can cost hundreds of thousands of pounds. Often they can start in the lab, extend to a cohort of 10-20 subjects and, in our case, are now involving 3-500 individuals.

“These are serious and meaningful studies and, in part, have allowed a number of our products to now be listed on the British Natural Formulary and available on prescription. Our initial in-vitro absorption studies on Transdermal Magnesium with Cardiff University, a trial concept which apparently the ASA considers irrelevant, demonstrated that the addition of aloe vera effectively blocks magnesium absorption through the skin. These studies are as vitally important for consumers as they are for serious nutritional brands.”

“Our studies contain peer-reviewed, double-blinded and placebo designed trials, considered gold-standard in any industry. The ASA substantiated the evidence of efficacy. They are ruling against independently researched consumer experience which doesn’t seem right”

More industry absorption studies are needed
“Too few nutritional supplement companies are investing in serious absorption science which has become crucial to the BetterYou proposition. These studies often underpin meaningful and pioneering product development and in our case a better understanding of how our bodies absorb nutrients. We don’t spend this money for the fun of it. I want more brands to undertake absorption studies to prove their products work. However, if these studies are now discounted by the ASA due to size or relevance in their eyes why would supplement companies even bother to consider scientific investment? People have challenged our industry as being ‘unregulated’ but the ASA’s ruling in this case is support for continued brand apathy where real science is concerned, and I intend to challenge in order to make our point of view heard.”