On December 17, 2025, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) took decisive action against a trio of weight loss drug companies, banning their social media advertisements for breaching both legal and ethical advertising standards. The companies at the center of this regulatory storm—Chequp, SkinnyJab, and MedExpress—are all online pharmacies, two of which are registered with the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC). Their ads, which promoted prescription-only medicines (POMs) directly to the public, were found to exploit body image insecurities and, in some cases, specifically target vulnerable groups like new mothers.
The ASA’s crackdown is part of a broader effort to protect consumers from irresponsible and illegal promotion of weight loss medications. According to Sky News, the watchdog’s investigation found that the ads violated explicit rules prohibiting the direct marketing of POMs to the general public—a fundamental principle in UK advertising law. But the ASA’s concerns went deeper than just legal technicalities. The content and messaging of these ads raised what the watchdog described as “serious social responsibility concerns.”
One of the most controversial advertisements came from MedExpress. The ad featured a woman photographing herself in a mirror, accompanied by the caption: “I wish I knew sooner that I could lose post-baby weight with a medicated weight loss treatment from MedExpress.” The ASA concluded that this messaging “encouraged new mothers to prioritise losing weight by using weight loss medication, exploited their insecurities about body image and perpetuated pressures for them to conform to body image stereotypes.” The ad was also flagged as “irresponsible” because weight loss medications carry warnings for those who are breastfeeding—a group that could be especially vulnerable to such marketing tactics.
MedExpress responded to the ASA by arguing that the ad did not expressly suggest that losing weight should be a top priority for mothers after childbirth, nor did it intend to use gender stereotypes. Nevertheless, the ASA was unequivocal in its ruling: the ad crossed the line by leveraging the insecurities of new mothers and promoting a potentially unsafe message.
Chequp’s ad, meanwhile, depicted a woman gazing at herself in a mirror alongside the text: “I don’t want to be skinny. I just don’t want to be the biggest person in the room.” The ASA found this campaign “irresponsibly exploited people’s insecurities around body image by suggesting there was a stigma associated with being a certain size.” Chequp defended its approach by stating it had intentionally depicted an individual who appeared significantly overweight, and argued that the ad did not give the impression that being overweight was undesirable or that people of a healthy weight should try to lose weight. The ASA, however, determined that the ad’s framing still played on harmful stereotypes and stigmas.
SkinnyJab, the third company in question, had an ad featuring its chief executive discussing weight loss medication. SkinnyJab contended that the content was not, in fact, an advertisement. The ASA disagreed, ruling that the video constituted marketing material and was therefore subject to the same rules as the other banned ads.
Jess Tye, regulatory projects manager at the ASA, spoke candidly about the watchdog’s stance. “Both the law and our rules make clear that prescription-only medication (POM) cannot be promoted directly to the public,” she said, as reported by Chemist+Druggist. “Today’s rulings also send a clear message that it’s not acceptable for ads to play on people’s insecurities around body image. This is a priority area for us and we’ve got further work under way to ensure people are protected from irresponsible and illegal weight loss POM ads.”
The ASA’s actions did not occur in a vacuum. The regulator is working in concert with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) to clamp down on the proliferation of prescription-only weight loss medication ads, especially on social media platforms. According to Pharmacy Business, the ASA’s collaboration with these agencies is part of a wider crackdown aimed at safeguarding public health and upholding advertising standards in an increasingly digital world.
In recent years, the popularity of weight loss injections and pills—often promoted under brand names like Ozempic and Mounjaro—has soared, fueled in part by social media influencers and aggressive online marketing. However, these medications are not without risks, particularly for certain groups such as breastfeeding women or those with underlying health conditions. The ASA’s decision to ban these ads reflects mounting concern that vulnerable individuals could be swayed by irresponsible marketing into using potentially unsafe treatments.
Public health advocates have repeatedly warned about the dangers of normalizing rapid weight loss and perpetuating unattainable body image ideals. The ASA’s rulings echo these concerns, highlighting the need for advertisers to act with greater social responsibility, especially when their products intersect with sensitive issues like self-esteem, mental health, and physical well-being.
The companies involved have, unsurprisingly, pushed back against the bans. MedExpress insisted that its ad was not intended to exploit gender stereotypes or pressure new mothers, while Chequp maintained that its campaign did not stigmatize overweight individuals. SkinnyJab, for its part, argued that its social media content did not constitute advertising at all. Yet the ASA’s findings were clear: regardless of intent, the effect of these ads was to exploit insecurities and, in some cases, promote unsafe behavior.
For the ASA, this case is about more than just a handful of ads. It signals a renewed commitment to policing the boundaries of ethical advertising in an era when digital marketing can reach millions in an instant. The regulator’s message is unambiguous: exploiting vulnerabilities—whether related to body image, mental health, or life transitions like motherhood—will not be tolerated in the promotion of prescription-only medicines.
Looking ahead, the ASA’s ongoing collaboration with the MHRA and GPhC suggests that further enforcement action may be on the horizon. The regulator’s focus on protecting consumers from irresponsible and illegal weight loss medication ads has become a priority, as stated by Jess Tye and echoed across multiple news outlets. Industry observers expect that companies operating in the online pharmacy and health product sectors will be under increased scrutiny in the months and years to come.
The debate over how best to balance commercial free speech, public health, and individual autonomy is far from settled. But for now, the ASA’s actions have drawn a clear line in the sand: when it comes to prescription-only weight loss drugs, exploiting insecurities and targeting vulnerable groups is out of bounds.
As the digital advertising landscape continues to evolve, so too does the need for vigilant oversight. The ASA’s latest rulings serve as a reminder that, even in a world of rapid technological change, the core principles of ethical advertising remain as relevant—and as necessary—as ever.
