案例库 · 广告与公关 · 市场决策 · 2025
这条还没译成中文，下面是英文原文。
Zoe's 'free from ultra-processed foods' Daily30+ ad was banned
The ASA banned a Zoe Daily30+ ad claiming the supplement was 'free from ultra-processed ingredients' — and upheld the ban on appeal.
Zoe · 2025-05-21
怎么回事
Zoe, the personalised nutrition company, ran a Facebook ad for its Daily30+ supplement claiming the product was 'free from ultra-processed (UPF) ingredients', 'just real food', a 'plant-based wholefood supplement', with 'no ultra-processed pills, no shakes'.
The ASA upheld a complaint that the claim was likely to mislead. Notably, the authority accepted that Daily30+ was not a UPF product under formal definitions — but ruled that what mattered was how consumers would read the claim, which implied the product carried no ultra-processed ingredients in a way that overstated it.
The initial ruling was published on 21 May 2025. Zoe appealed; the ASA rejected the challenge and upheld the ruling, despite an external review that had flagged flaws in the original decision.
为什么会这样
- A company built on data and precision tripped over a claim it could not defend
- The ad implied a 'free from UPF' purity that the product's own processing did not support
- Appealing a ruling the ASA had already reviewed, and losing again, stretched the damage
教训
A precision brand is held to precision standards. If your product is processed, telling people it is 'free from ultra-processed ingredients' invites a magnifying glass you may not survive on appeal.
后来呢
Zoe removed the claim after the ruling. The case became a cautionary tale for science-led food brands: the ASA judged the ad on consumer perception rather than on whether the product met a formal definition, and upheld that view again on appeal.
资料来源
发现哪里写错了？告诉我们。
类似的案例
这家公司栽倒的地方，别处有人漂亮地解开过。 第二意见 →
Comments · 0
登录 后就能评论。