Huel ad banned after watchdog finds it suggested shakes could replace all meals

Huel must stop running an Instagram video and YouTube ad in the form examined by the UK Advertising Standards Authority, which ruled on 30 September 2026 that the ads encouraged an irresponsible diet and made unauthorised health claims. The decision matters to consumers because the watchdog found that a story about an ultramarathon runner could make replacing all conventional food with Huel seem acceptable, even though the ads did not explicitly recommend doing so.

The ASA upheld both issues it investigated: whether the ads were socially responsible and whether their health claims complied with advertising rules. Its decision concerns what viewers could reasonably take from the marketing. It does not verify the runner's diet or result, establish that Huel affected athletic performance, or identify any consumer who changed their diet because of the ads.

What the Huel Instagram and YouTube ads showed

The ads, seen in April and May 2026, showed Huel founder Julian Hearn and brand ambassador Spencer Matthews speaking into microphones in a podcast-style conversation. The Instagram caption said: ‘Here's how our founder uses Huel. Spoiler alert it's not for every meal.’ Hearn described using Huel for breakfast and lunch during the working week, then eating a traditional meal at home.

Matthews then recalled meeting a competitor during the Amazon Ultra, a 260-kilometre race through the rainforest. He said the runner ate only Huel. Matthews described doubting that the man would complete the race, before saying he had won ‘by miles’. The account was an anecdote within an advertisement; the ruling does not independently establish the runner's identity, diet or result.

Why the ASA found the meal replacement message irresponsible

In its published ruling, the ASA acknowledged the qualifications in the caption and Hearn's description of his own meals. It said the ads did not expressly advise people to replace every conventional meal. But the watchdog concluded that the race story placed exclusive consumption of Huel in a positive setting, with the claimed victory overturning Matthews' initial scepticism.

The ASA said the surrounding remarks did not sufficiently counter that impression. In particular, it noted that Hearn did not challenge the idea of exclusive consumption after the anecdote; the conversation turned instead to Huel's nutritional completeness and convenience. Viewers could therefore understand a Huel-only diet as acceptable and compatible with exceptionally demanding physical activity, the watchdog found.

The ruling also set out the watchdog's nutritional reasoning. It said a diet consisting only of Huel would lack the same variety of nutrients and other benefits associated with varied whole foods. Huel products supplied up to 400 calories per serving, it said, so someone relying on them exclusively would need multiple servings throughout the day to meet average energy needs. The ads did not make that distinction clear. The ASA concluded that the overall message encouraged or condoned irresponsible dietary habits and breached the advertising code's social responsibility rule.

The endurance and general health claims in the ruling

The ASA also upheld the health-claims complaint. It found that the contrast between Matthews' expectation that the runner would struggle and his account of a convincing win implied a beneficial link between consuming Huel and sustaining exceptionally high endurance performance. The ads did not state that Huel caused the result, but the watchdog said an implied claim still counted under the rules for food advertising.

The regulator said it had seen no evidence that this specific performance claim was authorised on the Great Britain nutrition and health claims register. It separately assessed Hearn's statement that Huel ‘gives you everything that you do need’. In the context of the conversation about whole food, the ASA treated those words as a general health claim. Such a claim must be accompanied by a relevant authorised specific health claim, which the ads lacked, it said.

The health-claims findings concerned CAP Code rules 15.1, 15.1.1 and 15.2. Alongside the social responsibility breach under rule 1.3, they explain why the watchdog rejected both the dietary message and the way the ads presented potential health benefits. The ruling is about compliance with advertising standards, not a finding that the anecdote proves any effect on endurance.

Huel's response and the changes required

Huel disputed the regulator's reading of the ads. In its response to the complaints, the company said they were designed to address the misconception that its products were intended to make up an entire diet. It described Matthews' story as an unusual, surprising incident rather than a representative result or an instruction to copy the runner. Huel said Hearn's comments presented whole food as the ideal and its products as an option when preparing it was impractical.

The company also argued that the runner anecdote did not say Huel improved performance, and that ‘gives you everything that you do need’ described the product's composition rather than a health benefit. According to the ruling, Huel said an explanation of what ‘nutritionally complete’ meant had been omitted from the ads through an oversight. It said it was arranging compliance training for its marketing team and reviewing its approval process.

The ASA directed that the ads must not appear again in the form complained of. It told Huel to avoid marketing that encourages or condones replacing conventional food entirely with its products. Future ads must also avoid specific health claims unless authorised on the Great Britain register, and general health claims unless accompanied by a relevant authorised specific claim.

Huel told BBC News after the decision that it had complied with the ruling. A spokesperson said the company did not position Huel as a complete diet replacement or claim that it improved athletic performance. That response and the ASA's directions leave a clear distinction for future advertising: the watchdog's objection was to the impression created by these particular ads, including the race story and the unsupported health claims.