The encyclopedia · Advertising & PR · Marketing decision · 2024
Steven Bartlett praised Huel in ads — the ASA banned them because he's a director
Steven Bartlett's Huel ads looked like genuine testimonials. The ASA banned them for omitting that he sits on Huel's board.
Huel · ZOE
What happened
In 2024, Steven Bartlett — podcaster, Dragon's Den investor, and social media personality — appeared in ads for Huel and ZOE on Instagram and Facebook. For Huel, he was pictured drinking the product with the quote 'This is Huel's best product.' For ZOE, he wore a continuous glucose monitor patch with the line 'Give it a shot. It might just change your life.'
On August 14, 2024, the UK's Advertising Standards Authority banned both sets of ads. The ASA ruled that Bartlett's position as a director of Huel and an investor in ZOE was 'material information' that consumers needed to make an informed decision. Without that disclosure, the ads appeared to be independent testimonials from a satisfied user, not promotional content from someone with a financial stake in the products.
The ruling reinforced a principle the ASA has applied across influencer marketing: a commercial relationship does not become invisible because the endorsement feels authentic. Bartlett did not disclose his board seat or investment in the ads themselves.
Why it happened
- The ads relied on perceived independence: Bartlett's health-curious interviewer reputation gave the testimonials credibility a paid sponsorship would not — and that credibility was the problem.
- The disclosure gap was structural: saying 'I'm a director' would have changed the ad's entire framing from 'I tried this and liked it' to 'I profit when you buy this.'
- Two brands in one ban showed a pattern: the same person failing to disclose financial ties across multiple companies indicated the omission was a strategy, not an oversight.
- The ASA's standard is absolute: any commercial relationship that would affect a consumer's assessment of an endorsement must be stated in the ad — not buried in a bio.
The lesson
An endorsement from a director is an ad, not a review. Perceived authenticity that depends on hiding the financial relationship is what the disclosure rules exist to catch.
Sources
spotted an error? The club wants to know.
More like this
Wakker Dier's 'correction' — one in four cows lame — was itself misleading, the RCC ruled
The Good Roll sold 10% green bonds — the risks only lived in the prospectus
OceanSaver called its laundry pods 'plastic-free' — a rival's complaint got the ad banned
Somewhere, someone solved the problem this company failed at. 2nd Opinion →
Comments · 0
Sign in to join the comments.