You sign off creator posts for a living, and the question you are usually asked is whether the post says it is an ad. Read six recent UK Advertising Standards Authority rulings on influencer posts and that question turns out to be only part of what the regulator looked at. In one of the six, the ASA assessed whether the post was identifiable as an ad. In the other five, the complaint was about something else.
What this reads, and what it does not
Every ruling below was read in full on asa.org.uk on 17 October 2026. The six are Harnbury Holdings Ltd t/a San Carlo (23 September 2026), Lidl Northern Ireland Ltd (15 April 2026), Morley’s (Fast Foods) Ltd (23 September 2026), PLK Chicken UK Ltd t/a Popeyes (2 September 2026), Dribble Media Ltd t/a Midnite (10 June 2026) and UK Meds Direct Ltd (11 February 2026). This is a reading of UK ASA rulings only. It is not legal advice and it is not a survey of all ASA influencer rulings.
The six came from the first page of the ASA rulings search for “influencer”, sorted by recent. They were kept because the post description and the ASA’s reasoning are both on the page. The mechanics of the paid partnership label and the US standard are covered in how the paid partnership label relates to the FTC standard; they are not repeated here.
The one where the post itself did not say it was an ad
The Harnbury ruling concerned an Instagram carousel by Pamela Olender for the restaurant San Carlo Cicchetti, posted on 7 April 2026. The ruling records that she had not used “#ad” or Instagram’s paid partnership tool, though she tagged the brand accounts.
No money changed hands. The ASA still treated the post as an ad, and the reasoning is the useful part. The invitation offered complimentary food and drink for her and a guest “in exchange” for a minimum of three Instagram Story frames and a grid carousel or reel tagging the restaurant. A further email attached a press release “so you have all the messaging and wording ahead of your visit”, and her post reflected some of its key messaging. The ASA concluded that the food and drink were a payment for posting, and that the restaurant therefore had sufficient control over the content for the post to be a marketing communication under the CAP Code.
The advertiser had argued there was no editorial control and no contract. It said it did not tell her what to include, review the post before publication, or reserve a right to change it. The ASA acknowledged there was no monetary payment, no formal contract and no requirement to approve the post, and did not accept the argument on these facts.
On recognition, the ASA found nothing in the content, “such as ‘#ad’ placed upfront”, that made clear to viewers it was an ad. It said the tags, hashtags and linked text were not sufficient to make the commercial relationship clear. It upheld on CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 2.1, 2.3 and 2.4. It also upheld on the less healthy food rule, 15.19, because the post was a paid ad depicting seven specific less healthy menu items.
Four posts that were labelled, or where labelling was never the issue
The other four were argued on content.
Lidl Northern Ireland, 15 April 2026, upheld
An Instagram post by Emma Kearney showed her tasting two bakery items. The caption ended with “#AD”, and Lidl confirmed it was a paid ad. The complaint was whether it was a paid ad for an identifiable less healthy food product. The ASA held that, given the focus on the Pain Suisse and the Cheese Pretzel, consumers could reasonably be expected to identify the ad as being for those two products. The Cheese Pretzel was not HFSS. The Pain Suisse was, so the ASA concluded the post breached rule 15.19. A brief shot of a tray of Almond Croissants, not mentioned in the voice-over, was treated as “incidental and fleeting”.
Morley’s, 23 September 2026, upheld
Morley’s confirmed an Instagram post by Ellie Scotney was a paid ad that it arranged. The ruling describes an image of open take-away boxes of battered chicken and fries bearing the Morley’s logo, and caption text including “Partnering with @morleysuk”. Morley’s said it had been unaware of the scope of the CAP Code on less healthy food. The ASA said the ad depicted two specific less healthy foods, battered chicken and fries, and breached rule 15.19. It noted Morley’s had accepted the items were HFSS.
Popeyes, 2 September 2026, not upheld
This is the contrasting case. The visible part of the caption on the Instagram post by Jono Yates opened with “Ad”, and the complaint was again about identifiable less healthy products. The ASA found the Big Cajun Wrap with Chicken Breakfast Patty was clearly identified by the visuals, the name in the voice-over and the on-screen text, and so was the Cajun Hash Brown, and neither was HFSS. The ASA found the ad was a brand advertisement, outside the rule, and not in breach. The ruling also covered a second item, ad (b), a paid Instagram ad showing an image of a wrap, also not upheld on the same rule.
Midnite, 10 June 2026, not upheld
A TikTok post by Mia Mon for the betting platform Midnite carried the text “#ad… Paid partnership”. The complaint, from a parent whose 13-year-old son saw it on his feed, was whether the ad included a person likely to be of strong appeal to under-18s. The ASA used CAP guidance giving a rule of thumb of 100,000 under-18 follower accounts across platforms as indicative of strong appeal. On the ruling’s figures, 9.6% of 409,100 TikTok followers (39,274) and 9% of 193,000 Instagram followers (17,370) were registered as under 18. That made 56,644 across the two, which the ASA called significantly below the 100,000 figure. It found no breach of rules 16.1, 16.3 and 16.3.12.
The comparison these four support is narrow. A visible label did not decide any of them. Two were upheld and two were not, on grounds that had nothing to do with whether the label was there.
An affiliate code on TikTok
The UK Meds Direct ruling, 11 February 2026, is outside the less healthy food cluster, so do not assume the other five are typical of all influencer rulings. It concerned two TikTok posts about the weight-loss injection Mounjaro. Followers could enter a unique referral code for a discount on a first order, and the ruling says the person linked to a code was entitled to a commission payment if 100 new customers used it.
The ASA upheld because the posts promoted a prescription-only medicine to the public, which the CAP Code does not allow. It said it considered the references to Mounjaro promoted POMs to the public “whether or not such references were preceded by a hashtag or were part of larger references”. It found a breach of rule 12.12. Separately, the ASA recorded that the account holder @danyelamarshall did not respond to its enquiries, a breach of rule 1.7 (Unreasonable delay).
The six side by side
| Advertiser and ruling date | Platform | Outcome | Code rule or issue | What the complaint turned on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harnbury Holdings t/a San Carlo, 23 September 2026 | Upheld, both issues | Rules 2.1, 2.3, 2.4 and 15.19 | Complimentary food and drink as payment, press release messaging, no upfront identifier, seven specific less healthy items | |
| Lidl Northern Ireland, 15 April 2026 | Upheld | Rule 15.19 | Pain Suisse identifiable and less healthy; Cheese Pretzel not HFSS; Almond Croissants incidental | |
| Morley’s, 23 September 2026 | Upheld | Rule 15.19 | Battered chicken and fries shown as two specific less healthy foods | |
| PLK Chicken UK t/a Popeyes, 2 September 2026 | Not upheld, both issues | Rule 15.19 | Named products not HFSS; muffin (ad a) and wrap (ad b) images not indistinguishable from a less healthy product | |
| Dribble Media t/a Midnite, 10 June 2026 | TikTok | Not upheld | Rules 16.1, 16.3, 16.3.12 | Strong appeal to under-18s; 56,644 under-18 followers against a 100,000 rule of thumb |
| UK Meds Direct, 11 February 2026 | TikTok | Upheld | Rule 12.12 (and 1.7 for one account) | Naming a prescription-only medicine, including in hashtags, in affiliate code posts |
Count: in one of the six, Harnbury, the ASA assessed whether the post was identifiable as an ad under rules 2.1 to 2.4. In the other five it did not.
What a manager can take from six rulings, and what they cannot
The rulings raise questions a sign-off could ask. What was given or paid in exchange, and for what? That was Harnbury. Who wrote or supplied the messaging? Which product is identifiable from the images and voice-over? That was Lidl, Morley’s and Popeyes. Who does the creator appeal to, and what is the evidence? That was Midnite. What does the post say about a medicine or health claim, hashtags included? That was UK Meds Direct.
Six rulings cannot show how often the ASA acts, what happens after a ruling beyond the action stated on each page, whether other regulators would agree, or anything about reach or sales. The ASA found no breach in two of the six: Popeyes and Midnite. This is a reading of what the regulator said, not a statement that any post is or is not compliant.
FAQ
Does a gifted meal make an influencer post an ad in the eyes of the ASA?
In the Harnbury ruling it did. The ASA treated complimentary food and drink offered in exchange for specified posts as payment, and found the restaurant had sufficient control through the required content and the press release. That is one ruling decided on its facts.
Were all six rulings upheld?
No. Four were upheld: UK Meds Direct (11 February 2026), Lidl Northern Ireland (15 April 2026), Harnbury Holdings t/a San Carlo (23 September 2026) and Morley’s (23 September 2026). Two were not upheld: Dribble Media t/a Midnite (10 June 2026) and PLK Chicken UK t/a Popeyes (2 September 2026).
Does this tell me how to label a post?
No. This reads what the regulator objected to, covers the UK only and is not legal advice. Label mechanics are in the post linked near the top.
Sources
- ASA ruling on Harnbury Holdings Ltd t/a San Carlo, fetched 2026-10-17
- ASA ruling on Lidl Northern Ireland Ltd, fetched 2026-10-17
- ASA ruling on Morley’s (Fast Foods) Ltd, fetched 2026-10-17
- ASA ruling on PLK Chicken UK Ltd t/a Popeyes, fetched 2026-10-17
- ASA ruling on Dribble Media Ltd t/a Midnite, fetched 2026-10-17
- ASA ruling on UK Meds Direct Ltd, fetched 2026-10-17
- ASA rulings search for influencer, sorted by recent, fetched 2026-10-17
