Consultation outcome

Introducing further advertising restrictions on TV and online for less healthy food and drink: government response to consultation on IPTV

Updated 3 December 2024

Executive summary

We have a bold ambition to raise the healthiest generation of children in our history, and this includes taking action to address the childhood obesity crisis. On 1 October 2025, further restrictions will come into force on the advertising of less healthy food or drink products on TV and online. This will include:

• a 9pm watershed for less healthy food or drink advertising on TV, including all on-demand programme services (ODPS) under the jurisdiction of the UK, and therefore regulated by Ofcom
• a total restriction on paid-for advertising of less healthy food or drink online, including non-Ofcom regulated ODPS

The final policy was confirmed in 2021 following consultations in 2019 and 2020 and was set out in primary legislation through the Health and Care Act 2022, which amended the Communications Act 2003. From December 2022 to March 2023, there was a consultation on the draft secondary legislation. This sought views on the clarity of the definitions of the products, businesses and services in scope of the advertising restrictions and an exemption for audio-only content.

We published our response to this consultation in September 2024. At the same time, we launched a targeted technical consultation to clarify how the regulations will apply to internet protocol television (IPTV) services, which are services that deliver TV and advertising live over the internet.

We proposed to amend the secondary legislation to clarify that Ofcom-regulated IPTV services would be subject to the 9pm broadcast watershed rather than the 24-hour online restrictions. This would be consistent with the treatment of linear broadcast and Ofcom-regulated ODPS and provide clarity for those complying with and enforcing the regulations.

This document summarises the feedback received and sets out the government’s response to the consultation and next steps.

Introduction

Coming to government this year we have been clear at the core of our health mission that we must take bold action to address the childhood obesity crisis, which includes restricting advertising of less healthy food or drink products to children.

The country wants to see our broken NHS fixed. Our health mission makes clear that this requires a prevention revolution, tackling the drivers of preventable illness and reducing demand on health services. Obesity costs the NHS around £11.4 billion a year and is the second biggest preventable cause of cancer.^{[footnote 1]} According to the Health Survey for England 2022, around 64% of adults in England are above a healthy weight and, of these, around half live with obesity. Data from the National Child Measurement Programme shows that in the 2022 to 2023 school year, just less than one in 10 children in England aged 4 to 5 years were obese, rising to just under a quarter of children by the time they reach age 10 to 11 years.

We make numerous decisions about the food we eat, and we are presented every day with encouragement and opportunity to eat less healthy foods. This can be through advertisements on TV^{[footnote 2]} and online,^{[footnote 3]} or through the range of foods available and promoted in shops. This influences the choices that we, and our children, make. Evidence shows that children’s exposure to advertisements for food or drink that are less healthy can affect what and when they eat.^{[footnote 4]} In the long term, this can shape children’s food preferences from a young age.^{[footnote 5]}

While implementation of the advertising restrictions has been subject to repeated delays in the past, this government will implement them from 1 October 2025. Detailed evidence to support the introduction of these restrictions was set out in the 2019 consultation and impact assessment, the 2020 consultation and the 2021 response to both these consultations.

In September 2024, we published a response to the consultation held in 2022 to 2023 on the draft secondary legislation. As part of this, we launched a targeted, technical consultation to clarify how the regulations will apply to IPTV services, which are services that deliver TV and advertising live over the internet. This document summarises the feedback received and confirms the final position on IPTV that is set out in the final regulations.

The Advertising (Less Healthy Food Definitions and Exemptions) Regulations 2024 and explanatory memorandum were laid before Parliament on 3 December 2024. To support businesses ahead of the advertising restrictions coming into force on 1 October 2025, the government has published guidance on the food or drink products in scope of the restrictions. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) will be publishing implementation guidance.

Consultation responses

This was a targeted and technical consultation held between September and October 2024. It was launched as part of our response to the consultation on the draft secondary legislation for the advertising restrictions that was held between December 2022 and March 2023. It sought views on our proposal to clarify in the secondary legislation that Ofcom-regulated IPTV services will only be subject to the broadcast advertising restrictions (9pm watershed).

Some feedback was received on issues beyond the scope of this consultation, such as taking further action on obesity. We have summarised this feedback under themes below, but it was not used to inform the government’s decision on IPTV because it was not directly relevant to this consultation.

Breakdown of responses

The consultation received 59 responses. Of these:

• 80% (47) were from individuals, of which:
  • 35 respondents were sharing their personal views and experiences while 12 shared their professional views
  • no individual sharing their professional views gave details of their organisation
• 19% (11) were from organisations, of which:
  • 7 were from industry businesses (including trade associations, professional bodies and broadcasters)
  • 4 were from non-governmental organisations
• one did not provide details about whether they were an individual representing their own views, an individual responding on behalf of an organisation, or an organisation

Analysing the responses

Fifty-eight responses were submitted through the online survey and one response was received by email. Responses were analysed by analysts and policy officials from the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) who co-own the policy for restricting advertisements for less healthy food or drink products on TV and online.

The first 2 questions were mandatory and asked respondents for a closed response (agree, disagree, neither agree nor disagree or don’t know) with the opportunity to give a justification for their answer or provide additional information in a free-text box.

The third question was optional and asked respondents for any additional comments on how the advertising restrictions, with the proposed exemption, would apply to an identical service that is simultaneously available on an Ofcom-regulated electronic programme guide (EPG) and an unregulated platform.

Percentages do not all add up to 100 due to rounding, and numbers of responses reflect that respondents may have mentioned multiple themes.

All free text responses were considered by DHSC officials and grouped into discrete themes to give an indication of respondents’ thoughts on the questions asked.

Proposal for Ofcom-regulated IPTV services

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed exemption of Ofcom-regulated IPTV services from the online restrictions?

All 59 respondents answered this question.

63% (37) of both individuals and organisations that answered this question agreed with the proposed exemption, while 29% (17) disagreed. 8% (5) neither agreed nor disagreed or did not know.

Of the 11 organisations that answered this question, 73% (8) agreed with the proposed exemption while 27% (3) disagreed.

The 3 organisations that disagreed were from not-for-profit non-governmental organisations.

Of the 47 individuals that responded, 60% (28) agreed with the proposed exemption while 30% (14) disagreed. 6% (3) neither agreed nor disagreed and 4% (2) did not know.

Of the 19 individuals that disagreed, neither agreed nor disagreed or did not know, 8 provided comments, all of which were out of scope of this consultation.

Proposal for unregulated IPTV services

Question: Do you agree or disagree that it is clear how the advertising restrictions, with the proposed exemption, apply to IPTV that is not regulated by Ofcom?

All 59 respondents answered this question.

51% (30) of both individuals and organisations that answered this question agreed that it was clear how the regulations would apply to unregulated IPTV while 24% (14) disagreed. 19% (11) neither agreed nor disagreed, and 7% (4) did not know.

Of the 11 organisations that answered this question, 64% (7) agreed (it was clear) while 18% (2) disagreed (it was not clear) and 18% (2) neither agreed nor disagreed.

Three of the 4 organisations that either disagreed (it was not clear), or neither agreed nor disagreed were from not-for-profit non-governmental organisations and the fourth was from a media trade association.

Of the 47 individuals that answered this question, 49% (23) agreed (it was clear) while 26% (12) disagreed (it was not clear). 17% (8) neither agreed nor disagreed and 9% (4) did not know.

Of the 24 individuals that either disagreed (it was not clear), neither agreed nor disagreed or did not know, 8 provided comments. Four of the individuals commented that they did not have the required background and therefore did not understand the detail of the consultation. The other comments were out of scope.

Proposal for identical IPTV services simultaneously available on an Ofcom-regulated and unregulated platform

Question: Do you have any additional comments on how the advertising restrictions, with the proposed exemption, apply to an identical service that is simultaneously available on an Ofcom-regulated EPG and an unregulated platform?

Eighteen respondents (10 organisations and 8 individuals) provided a response to this question. In addition to answering the question, respondents provided additional feedback on the consultation. We considered all responses and have provided a summary of the main themes and the government’s response below.

Numbers of responses reflect that respondents may have mentioned multiple themes.

Responses from organisations

Two organisations highlighted the importance of clarifying the treatment of IPTV within the regulations to prevent double regulation and minimise regulatory burdens on businesses.

Two organisations suggested that an exemption based around whether an IPTV service is regulated by Ofcom or not could cause inconsistency and create an unlevel playing field for service providers.

Two organisations said the proposed exemption for Ofcom-regulated IPTV services from the online restrictions could incentivise services to become Ofcom-regulated.

Two organisations mentioned that Ofcom-regulated IPTV being subject to the broadcast restrictions, rather than the online restrictions, would not support ambitions to address childhood obesity as children can view media on tablets and other devices after the 9pm watershed.

Two organisations noted that the amount of TV delivered over the internet is increasing and/or the number of regulated EPGs could also change overtime.

Three organisations called for the publication of DCMS’s response to the consultation on the regulation of additional electronic programme guides to provide clarity around the future impact of the proposed exemption for Ofcom-regulated IPTV from the online restrictions.

Three organisations highlighted the importance of monitoring and reviewing the effectiveness of the policy.

Some feedback received from organisations was out of scope of the consultation, but we have summarised this below. In summary:

• one organisation advocated for further regulation on the advertising of less healthy food or drink, such as restrictions on outdoor advertising (for example, billboards, digital screens and public transport)
• 2 organisations noted the previous delays to the implementation of the advertising restrictions and urged the government to ensure there are no further delays and/or asked that the response to this consultation, the final secondary legislation and guidance be published as soon as possible
• one organisation suggested that expanding regulation for EPGs, as the previous government consulted on, would have a negative impact on businesses and revenue. The same respondent advocated for an assessment of the impact for IPTV providers

Responses from individuals

Feedback was received from individuals that was out of scope of the consultation. In summary:

• 6 individuals provided general support for restricting advertising of less healthy food or drink and one advocated for the restrictions to go further
• one suggested that the restrictions were contributing to a ‘nanny state’
• 2 advocated for the advertising restrictions to extend to gambling
• one suggested that making healthier food more affordable and accessible would be more effective than restricting advertising for less healthy products

Government response

Having considered the responses to this consultation, we have amended the secondary legislation, in line with our proposal, to clarify that Ofcom-regulated IPTV services will be subject to the broadcast restrictions (9pm watershed) and not the total online restrictions. Clarifying which regime these services are subject to will prevent double regulation and provide clarity to businesses and regulators. This is consistent with our position on Ofcom-regulated on-demand programme services.

Unregulated IPTV services will continue to be subject to the online restrictions. If unregulated services were to be exempted from the online restrictions, Ofcom would not have powers to take action in the case of a breach, as per specific powers provided by the Health and Care Act 2022.

We have also amended the secondary legislation, in line with our proposal, to clarify that in instances where a service is simultaneously available on an Ofcom-regulated EPG and an unregulated platform and is identical in all respects including the adverts, the service on the unregulated platform will be exempt from the online restrictions to prevent double regulation.

Implementation guidance to be published by ASA will provide further information on how the advertising restrictions will be implemented and enforced in practice.

The government will set out its position on the use of existing powers that allow it to update which EPGs are regulated in the UK in due course. As part of government standard practice, we will regularly monitor the policy and the landscape and will conduct a formal evaluation 5 years post implementation.

Next steps

The Advertising (Less Healthy Food Definitions and Exemptions) Regulations 2024 and explanatory memorandum were laid before Parliament on 3 December 2024.

To support businesses ahead of the advertising restrictions coming into  force on 1 October 2025, the government has published guidance on the food or drink products in scope of the restrictions. Implementation guidance will be published by ASA as the frontline regulator.

We will continue to work with businesses as they prepare for implementation of the restrictions.

1. Bell M, Deyes K. The full cost of obesity in the UK. Frontier Economics: 2022. ↩

2. Ng D, Froguel A, and Clark M. Analysis of revenue for ITV1, Channel 4, Channel 5 and Sky One derived from HFSS TV advertising spots in September 2019 (PDF, 270KB). Cancer Research UK: 2020.  ↩

3. Tackling food marketing to children in a digital world: trans-disciplinary perspectives. World Health Organization: 2016. ↩

4. Cairns G, Angus K, Hastings G. The extent, nature and effects of food promotion to children: a review of the evidence to December 2008. World Health Organization: 2009.
   Halford JC and others. ‘Beyond-brand effect of television (TV) food advertisements/commercials on caloric intake and food choice of 5 to 7 year old children’. Appetite: 2007, volume 49, issue 1, pages 263 to 267.
   Halford JC, Gillespie J, Brown V, Pontin EE, Dovey TM. ‘Effect of television advertisements for foods on food consumption in children’. Appetite 2004: volume 42, issue 2, pages 221 to 225. ↩

5. Cairns G, Angus K, Hastings G. The extent, nature and effects of food promotion to children: a review of the evidence to December 2008. World Health Organization: 2009.
   Hastings G, Stead M, McDermott L, Forsyth A, MacKintosh AM, Rayner M, Godfrey C, Caraher M, Angus K. ‘Review of research on the effects of food promotion to children’. Food Standards Agency, London: 2003 ↩