The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has upheld two complaints against Huel over Instagram and YouTube advertising in a ruling that underlines the advertising watchdog’s focus not just on explicit claims, but on the overall impression created by an advertisement.

The ads, seen in April and May 2026, featured Huel founder Julian Hearn and Spencer Matthews in a podcast-style conversation. While the advertising sought to distinguish Huel’s intended use from consuming it exclusively, the ASA concluded that the overall presentation could encourage consumers to view an all-Huel diet as acceptable – particularly in the context of strenuous physical activity.

The first complaint centred on whether the ads were irresponsible. Huel argued that the campaign was intended to address, rather than promote, the fact that some consumers use Huel as 100% of their diet. Hearn explained that he personally consumed Huel for breakfast and lunch during the working week before eating a traditional meal in the evening and at weekends, while also saying that, ideally, people should eat nutritionally complete whole foods.

However, the ASA took particular issue with an anecdote from Matthews about an individual who consumed only Huel while competing in a 260km ultramarathon through the Amazon rainforest. Despite Matthews initially expressing disbelief that the competitor would be able to complete the race, he went on to describe how the runner won by a significant margin.

In the view off the advertising watchdog, this anecdote ultimately outweighed the campaign’s more cautious messaging. Rather than functioning as a warning, it said the anecdote presented exclusive Huel consumption in a “particularly positive context”, suggesting that an all-Huel diet was compatible with exceptional endurance performance.

The regulator also noted that Huel products provided up to 400 calories per serving. Someone relying exclusively on the products would therefore need multiple servings to meet average daily energy requirements. The ads did not make this sufficiently clear, the ASA said, and in its view consequently encouraged or condoned an irresponsible dietary practice.

The second upheld complaint concerned health claims. Huel argued that the ultramarathon story did not explicitly claim that Huel caused the competitor’s success. The ASA nevertheless considered that the narrative implied a beneficial relationship between consuming Huel and sustaining exceptionally high levels of endurance and athletic performance. Such claims fall within the Code’s definition of health claims and, the ASA said, required authorisation on the Great Britain nutrition and health claims register. No evidence of such authorisation was provided.

The ASA also ruled that Hearn’s statement that Huel “gives you everything that you do need” constituted a general health claim, because consumers would understand it as referring to the nutritional requirements needed for general health and bodily functioning. It was not accompanied by an appropriate authorised specific health claim.

The ruling means the ads must not appear again in their current form. Huel has also been told to ensure future marketing does not encourage or condone the exclusive consumption of its products in place of conventional food, and to ensure that health claims comply with the relevant CAP Code requirements.