Regulators vs weight loss ads: Time to rethink the rules?
“Medicated weight loss isn’t cheating.” Since I first wrote about the rise of GLP-1 counterfeits online, I’ve been inundated with weight loss ads across YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, and Facebook. No matter how many I block or report, they keep coming.
Certain companies seem particularly relentless. Their ads don’t explicitly name the drugs they prescribe, but they don’t need to. Suggestive phrases like “doctor-supported weight loss” and “clinically proven treatment” make it clear what’s being offered – while (mostly) staying within UK advertising regulations.
This wink-wink, nudge-nudge approach is becoming increasingly common. While UK law bans direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising of prescription medicines, weight loss companies are exploiting loopholes. Social media influencers, telehealth platforms, and vague, but suggestive, marketing mean prescription weight loss treatments are now being promoted at scale – despite regulations designed to prevent exactly that.
The rules: What’s allowed and what’s not?
The UK has long taken a strict stance on the direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising of prescription medicines. Unlike in the US and New Zealand, where pharma companies can market drugs directly to consumers with certain disclosures, the UK – along with the majority of nations – bans this practice outright.
The intention behind these regulations is clear: to prevent misleading claims, protect patient safety, and ensure that treatment decisions are guided by clinical need, rather than marketing pressure. However, these rules were largely devised before the rise of telehealth platforms, influencer marketing, and algorithm-driven ad targeting, which have created new opportunities for companies to sidestep the spirit of the law, while technically remaining within its boundaries.
- Prescription medicines cannot be directly advertised to the public.
- Non-prescription weight loss products can be promoted – but only with truthful, substantiated claims.
- Health services, including weight loss clinics and online prescribing platforms, can advertise their services, as long as they do not promote specific prescription drugs.
This last point is where things start to get a bit murky. Companies don’t need to name a drug to drive demand for it. Instead, they use carefully chosen language, patient testimonials, and influencer partnerships to push consumers toward a consultation – one that often results in a prescription.
Take the “medicated weight loss isn’t cheating” ad, for example. It doesn’t mention GLP-1s outright, but in a world where these drugs dominate headlines, consumers already know what’s being referenced. The phrase “medicated weight loss” easily translates to well-known drug names like Ozempic, Wegovy, or Zepbound in patients’ minds. The mere suggestion is enough to guide people toward requesting a prescription.
A game of cat and mouse
Regulatory enforcement was once simpler. In the days of TV and radio, it was easy to monitor and penalise violators. But the speed and scale of digital advertising have significantly changed the game. Social media enables companies to rapidly test and tweak campaigns, making it difficult for regulators to keep up. For every ad taken down, ten more appear.
And these companies have become skilled at pushing the boundaries of the law without explicitly breaking it. They rely on vague but compelling ad copy, such as “doctor-supported weight loss” or “clinically proven treatment”, often accompanied by suggestive imagery – before-and-after transformations, self-injections, or green and blue pens that look suspiciously similar to popular GLP-1 injector devices.
The marketing can sometimes cross clear ethical boundaries. Australian company Juniper, for instance, drew criticism from industry experts with their ad, which claimed that, "There's a reason NHS workers choose Juniper to lose weight." This sponsored advertisement wasn’t the first time the company had fallen under the radar of regulators, and ultimately earned it an Advice Notice from the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). The ad was subsequently removed.
Telehealth services have made it easier than ever to move consumers from advertisement to prescription. Many weight loss companies present themselves as full-service programs that provide holistic support, yet, a brief consultation often leads directly to a prescription, making them functionally equivalent to online pharmacies with a few extra steps. Meanwhile, social media influencers amplify demand by openly discussing their experiences with GLP-1s, sidestepping the restrictions placed on official advertising.
Even when weight loss companies are restricted from directly promoting GLP-1s, social media algorithms do the work for them. Platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok detect user interest – whether from reading about GLP-1s, searching for weight loss content, or engaging with health-related topics – and begin serving advertisements for companies promising medical weight loss solutions.
Together, these strategies have created an environment where prescription weight loss drugs are effectively marketed to consumers at an unprecedented scale, despite regulations designed to prevent exactly this outcome. While the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) may not classify this as traditional direct-to-consumer advertising, the result remains the same: heightened consumer demand and growing expectations that these drugs should be available to anyone who wants them.
Time for a regulatory rethink?
Beyond the technical aspects of advertising regulations lies a more fundamental question: what is advertising actually meant to accomplish? Traditionally, advertising exists to stimulate product demand. But prescription drugs aren't typical consumer products, and their demand shouldn't be artificially generated.
A new dress might strain your finances, but it's unlikely to cause serious physical harm. In contrast, taking medication you don't medically need – because a commercial, social media ad, or influencer campaign suggested it would improve your life – carries significant health risks.
Despite the UK's strict prohibition on direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medicines, weight loss companies continue to test boundaries – and regulators are struggling to keep pace. Since April 2023, the MHRA has had to request website amendments promoting prescription-only weight loss drugs every single month, including cases where medications were being advertised for unapproved uses.
The enforcement statistics tell a concerning story. Following the Committee of Advertising Practice's 2021 enforcement notice regarding prescription-only weight-loss treatments, violations have actually increased. An investigation by the Guardian revealed that, while no complaints were upheld by the MHRA in 2019 and only four websites faced reprimands in 2020, the agency upheld 27 such breaches in 2023 and 19 in just the first nine months of 2024.
The issue isn't merely that companies are testing regulatory boundaries – it's that the current framework wasn't designed for today's digital advertising landscape, social media influence, and telehealth business models. Regulators find themselves in a reactive cycle, addressing violations after they occur, rather than preventing them systematically.
Given the level of consumer exposure and the risks associated with prescription-only medicines, a more proactive regulatory approach may be necessary. So, what can be done to address the situation? Well, here are just a few options:
Stronger pre-emptive regulations specifically addressing how telehealth companies advertise services likely to result in prescriptions
Stricter oversight of online ad targeting to prevent algorithm-driven promotion of weight loss drugs based on user behaviour
Greater accountability for social media platforms, requiring them to prevent misleading pharmaceutical advertising from reaching consumers
The fundamental question is no longer whether prescription weight loss drugs are being marketed to consumers – they clearly are. What remains to be determined is whether regulators should continue playing this game of regulatory whack-a-mole, or whether the rules need comprehensive modernisation to address how weight loss treatments are promoted in today's digital ecosystem.
