Huel advert pulled after watchdog ruling that it implied total food replacement was safe

A Huel advertisement promoting the brand's meal-replacement shakes has been banned by the UK's advertising watchdog, with regulators finding it encouraged or condoned "irresponsible" dietary practices by implying that living on the products alone was nutritionally sound and compatible with elite physical performance.

The ruling follows a complaint-driven investigation into a video featuring Huel brand ambassador Spencer Matthews in conversation with the company's founder, Julian Hearn. The ad was published as a sponsored Instagram post and as a YouTube pre-roll video, and was staged in the manner of a podcast interview.

At the centre of the complaint is an anecdote recounted by Matthews, who described meeting a competitor during an ultramarathon — a 260km race — who "only eats Huel". Matthews said he was openly sceptical that such a person could manage the distance, but added that the man went on to win "by miles, like literally just left us all in the dirt".

The Advertising Standards Authority said that although the ad did not explicitly tell viewers to replace all conventional food with Huel, the way the story was told left the door open to that conclusion. By framing exclusive consumption of the products as the explanation for an extraordinary athletic achievement, the ruling said, the ads suggested that replacing conventional food entirely was "nutritionally appropriate" and presented "no barrier to achieving a high level of physical performance".

Responding to the ASA, Huel argued that the anecdote was not a recommendation or an instruction, and that the purpose of the ad was to challenge the widely held assumption that Huel is meant to stand in for every meal. The company said Matthews reacted with "extreme scepticism and disbelief", and that the story was presented as a remarkable and unexpected occurrence rather than as a typical result or something for consumers to emulate. It added that neither speaker at any point suggested viewers should adopt a 100% Huel diet.

Much of the brand's defence rests on Hearn's own account of how he uses the products. According to the founder, he has Huel for breakfast and lunch during the working week but eats a "traditional meal" when he gets home. The Instagram post accompanying the video was similarly guarded, telling followers: "Here's how our founder uses Huel. Spoiler alert it's not for every meal."

Hearn also told Matthews that in an ideal world people should eat nutritionally complete whole food, but that most consumers either do not manage that or lack the time to do so — and that this is the gap Huel is designed to fill.

The ASA received four complaints about the advertisement, all questioning whether its content was irresponsible. Two of those complainants went further, arguing that the health claims made in the ad also breached the advertising code. The watchdog upheld that second complaint, ruling that Matthews' story implied a beneficial relationship between consuming Huel and the ability to sustain "exceptionally high levels of physical and endurance performance".

The decision is the latest in a running regulatory clash between the company and the ASA. Huel, which is headquartered in Hertfordshire, has previously found itself in hot water with the watchdog over how its products were presented as substitutes for conventional food. Nutrition experts have also questioned how effective such meal-replacement drinks actually are.

The ruling carries significance beyond a single social media campaign, because it appears to rest on what audiences could reasonably infer rather than on what the ad explicitly demanded. Regulators found a harmful impression — that eating nothing but the products was safe and enabled elite performance — in a video that the company insists was intended to puncture exactly that assumption. It is a distinction that sits awkwardly with influencer-led advertising, where brands rely on the credibility of personalities whose anecdotes can be persuasive without being prescriptive.

For Huel, the immediate consequence is the loss of a paid advert, while the company said it had complied with the ruling. A spokesperson told BBC News: "We do not position Huel as a complete diet replacement or claim that it improves athletic performance."

The wider timing adds pressure. Huel was founded by Hearn in 2015 and is currently being acquired by French food and drinks giant Danone, a deal that has been through the competition watchdog. That places a company already fighting for permission to make bold claims about meal replacement under a much larger corporate owner with greater resources — and a stronger incentive to keep marketing messages carefully within the boundaries set out by regulators.

Both the company and the ASA may yet disagree about where that boundary sits. For now, the ban means the advert will not run again in its current form, and the brand will have to make its case for a place in a balanced diet without borrowing credibility from an ultramarathon winner who allegedly ate nothing else.