September 25, 2026
We talk a lot about compliant claims in supplement advertising. But a new ASA ruling is a useful reminder that compliance goes much further than the words you use to describe your product.
Sometimes, it’s the creative concept itself that causes the problem.
On 2 September 2026, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) upheld a ruling against supplement brand Kind Patches over an Instagram ad for its “Dopamine Patch”. The ruling covered misleading health claims, but there was another issue we think brands should be paying close attention to: consent.
What did the ad show?
The video showed a woman secretly applying a supplement patch to a man’s arm while he was distracted ordering at a drive-through.
The accompanying text explained that he didn’t know she had put the patch on him, before suggesting his improved experience on their road trip was the result of the product.
Kind Patches explained that the scenario was intended to be humorous and fictional. The idea was essentially someone secretly doing something nice for their partner, a format we’ve all probably seen variations of across TikTok and Instagram.
But the ASA didn’t see it that way.
The regulator considered that applying a supplement patch to somebody without their knowledge or consent was irresponsible and that the advertising trivialised and condoned anti-social behaviour. Importantly, because the product was designed to deliver ingredients through the skin, the ASA also highlighted the possibility of unwanted or harmful reactions.
“It was only a joke” isn’t necessarily enough
This is where the ruling becomes particularly interesting for brands and their marketing teams.
Social media moves quickly. Brands understandably want content that feels entertaining, reactive and native to the platform rather than looking like traditional advertising.
But being playful doesn’t remove your regulatory responsibilities.
A funny scenario, trend or viral format still needs to be considered in the context of the product being advertised.
If your creative shows someone consuming, applying or being given a supplement or other product without their knowledge, there may be a consent issue to consider, regardless of how obviously fictional the scenario feels to the people creating it.
The ASA specifically acknowledged the brand’s explanation that the video was intended as a light-hearted fictional surprise. However, it concluded that consumers could still interpret the content as condoning the non-consensual application of the product.
There was also a claims problem
Consent wasn’t the only issue.
The ad claimed the patch could support mood, focus, motivation and emotional balance, as well as increase dopamine and serotonin levels.
Kind Patches acknowledged that it did not hold evidence to substantiate those claims. The ASA therefore concluded that the advertising was misleading. The brand also recognised that the name “Dopamine Patches” could itself give consumers the misleading impression that the product contained dopamine.
Compliance needs to be part of the creative process
For us, that’s the big takeaway.
Regulatory review shouldn’t happen once the marketing team has finished creating the campaign.
It needs to happen during the creative process.
Check the claims. Check the product name. Check the visuals. Check the scenario. And ask how a reasonable consumer could interpret what they’re seeing.
Because sometimes the problem isn’t hidden in the small print.
Sometimes it’s the entire joke.
