The advertising regulator stated Steven Bartlett’s sponsored postings should have disclosed his financial ties to the nutrition businesses.
Online advertisements for nutrition businesses Huel and Zoe, featuring Dragons’ Den star Steven Bartlett, have been banned because they neglected to disclose his participation in the companies.
The sponsored posts on Facebook in February and March featured remarks from the celebrity entrepreneur endorsing the company’s products.
The Zoe advertisement included a photo of Bartlett and the words: “If you haven’t tried Zoe yet, give it a go. It may simply transform your life.”
One of the Huel advertisements featured a remark from him hailing the brand’s Daily Greens powder as its “best product”. A second post had a video clip in which the star made similar remarks.
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) stated that Bartlett, an investor in Zoe and director at Huel, should have disclosed his vested interest.
The regulator cited his frequent appearances on BBC’s Dragons’ Den, where he provided “opinions on businesses” that he did not invest in.
The ASA stated that “many consumers” were unlikely to realise from the advertisements that he had an economic relationship with the brands and that social media users may have mistakenly assumed he was providing an unbiased endorsement.
As a result, it was determined that the two Huel advertisements and one for Zoe were deceptive or likely to mislead customers.
Commenting on the Huel posts, the ASA said: “We considered that Bartlett’s directorship was material to consumers’ understanding of the ads and so relevant for them in making an informed decision about the advertised product.
“Because the ads omitted material information about Steven Bartlett’s position as a director at Huel, we concluded they were likely to mislead.”
Regarding the Zoe advertisement, the regulator said: “Because the ad omitted material information about Steven Bartlett being an investor in Zoe, we concluded that it was misleading.”
A Zoe spokesperson told Sky News it believed its ad had been clearly marked and was compliant with the rules.
They added: “Neither the [advertising] code nor any of the ASA’s guidance suggests that it is necessary to go into granular detail about the precise nature of an ambassador’s commercial relationship with a brand…
“We respect the ASA’s work in upholding transparency in online advertising and have provided a written assurance that it will not appear again in that form. We would welcome further guidance to bring clarity to the effect of this decision.”.
In its response to the ASA, Huel defended its advertisements by arguing that consumers “generally understood” that when celebrities endorsed products, they did so “in the context of a commercial relationship.”.
The ASA ordered that none of the ads should appear again and asked the brands to ensure future posts “did not misleadingly omit material information regarding commercial relationships.”.