01What happened
On 6 May 2026 the ASA upheld a ruling against GLP-1 Pro Ltd, trading as GuLP‑1, over two pages of its supplement website. The homepage led with “Stubborn weight gone. Guaranteed.” and called the product a “Natural Alternative To Trending Weight Loss Products”, next to a comparison table showing the GuLP‑1 pack beside an injection pen. A product page promised the formula was “Engineered for optimum weight loss by naturally increasing GLP‑1 levels”.
Two issues were investigated and both were upheld. The weight-loss and GLP‑1 claims were specific health claims with no authorisation on the GB nutrition and health claims register. And the “without injections” framing, read with the pen image, implied the supplement matched the effects of GLP‑1 agonist injections, which made the claims medicinal. A food may not claim to prevent, treat or cure disease, and a product making medicinal claims without an MHRA authorisation cannot be marketed at all. CAP 15.1, 15.1.1 and 15.7, plus 12.1 and 12.11.
02The name as the claim
The detail that should stop supplement founders mid-scroll: the ASA considered the product name itself. Stylised as “GuLP‑1”, the name would be understood as a claim that the product affects GLP‑1 production. That is a specific health claim, and it was not authorised.
The advertiser told the ASA it had stripped out the GLP‑1 references, the needles and the comparisons after the complaint arrived, and that the name was “a brand name only”. The ruling stands against the page as published. The action line tells them not to make health claims through product names.
03The glucomannan trap
The product contained glucomannan, which carries one of the few authorised weight-loss claims on the GB register: it contributes to weight loss in the context of an energy-restricted diet. The page even carried that wording in the small print. It still failed, three ways.
The headline claims did not match the authorised wording. The claims were attached to the product as a whole rather than the nutrient that earned them. And the conditions of use require 3 g daily in three 1 g doses before meals, while the ad recommended a regime the ASA understood would deliver 4 g. Hold the authorised claim, breach its conditions, lose the claim. For supplement brands this is the most instructive part of the ruling: an authorisation on the register is not a licence for the marketing department, it is a fixed form of words with a dosing schedule attached.
04Takeaway
Trading on the GLP‑1 wave from the supplement aisle is now a named enforcement pattern. The action line in this ruling bans comparing a supplement’s effects to prescription weight-loss medicines, and MHRA is pressing the same logic from its side: its May list, published on 8 June, names CutKilo, EveryDayMeds and Curely over indirect references likely to lead the public to request a POM. The consultation may be promoted. The medicine may not. And if the claim lives in your brand name, no copy edit will save the page.
Sources: ASA ruling on GLP-1 Pro Ltd t/a GuLP-1, A25-1317723 (6 May 2026). MHRA, websites offering medicinal treatment services for weight loss, May 2026 (published 8 June 2026). CAP Enforcement Report and consumer research (2 April 2026). Joint Enforcement Notice, MHRA, ASA and GPhC (23 September 2025). CAP Code Section 12.