Consumer Watchdog Sounds Alarm Over Misleading Weight-Loss Supplement Advertising
Major retailers and online marketplaces are facing serious criticism for employing misleading and outlandish claims in their advertising of weight-loss supplements, according to a comprehensive investigation by consumer watchdog Which?. The organisation has revealed troubling evidence of widespread non-compliance with advertising regulations across prominent platforms including Amazon, eBay, Holland & Barrett, Superdrug, and Temu.
Regulatory Framework Being Flouted
Under current UK law, companies are strictly prohibited from making health claims about products without sufficient scientific evidence to support them. The Department of Health and Social Care maintains an official health claims register that explicitly details what businesses can and cannot state about an ingredient's effects on health, often with specific wording and conditions for its use.
Despite these clear regulations, Which? discovered numerous examples of supplements making claims that have been explicitly rejected by the official register due to lack of compelling evidence. One particularly concerning example involved Extreme Burn supplements by Formula Max 5 listed on eBay, which claimed that raspberry fruit extract "assists the body to burn fat at a higher rate" and that green coffee bean "decreases the absorption of carbohydrates". Both claims have been officially rejected by authorities.
Problematic Product Categorisation
The investigation uncovered another troubling practice: retailers creating website categories that imply weight-loss benefits for products that make no such claims themselves. Holland & Barrett had Acai Berry tablets listed under their "fat burner" section, despite neither the product page nor packaging making any weight-loss claims. Similarly, Superdrug's "appetite suppressant" section included a cinnamon supplement that made no appetite-suppressing claims of its own.
Which? emphasised that this categorisation creates a misleading impression for consumers, suggesting benefits that the products themselves do not claim to provide.
Unauthorised Medical Comparisons and Specific Claims
Perhaps most concerning were findings of supplements making direct comparisons to prescription medications. The Advertising Standards Authority clearly states that products cannot claim to have the same effects as prescription medicines, such as weight-loss jabs. Yet Which? found a listing for Phentramine 375 by Pharmaslim on eBay that asked: "Why use prescription weight loss pills when you can get non-prescription weight loss pills that have no negative side effects but are just as effective?"
The investigation also revealed supplements making specific claims about targeting particular body areas or promising rapid results - practices explicitly prohibited by advertising standards. On Temu, a "keto fat burner" supplement from brand Pslalae claimed customers would "lose your belly fat fast while you shred your stomach", while Coolkin's "slimming capsule" promised to "reduce waistline" and "slim & tone stomach".
Industry Response and Regulatory Action
Following Which?'s intervention, more than 50 misleading weight-loss supplement listings have been removed from various platforms. Sue Davies, Which? head of consumer policy, expressed serious concern about the findings: "It's really worrying that online marketplaces and popular health retailers are promoting misleading health supplements. Not only does this make it impossible for shoppers to trust the claims they see online but it also means people could be wasting their hard-earned cash on products which just don't live up to the claims."
Davies called for "better oversight of the industry" so that government and regulators can "crack down on these misleading listings and ensure that any sellers who break the rules are properly held to account".
A Government spokesman reiterated that "food labels must be easy to understand, accurate and honest" and that "any claims about the health benefits or nutritional value of supplements need to be backed by science and officially approved by authorities".
Retailer Reactions and Compliance Measures
Most retailers responded promptly to Which?'s findings. Amazon confirmed they had "removed the highlighted products in question", while eBay stated they had "reviewed the listings identified by Which? and have removed all items that are against eBay policy".
Holland and Barrett explained that their "product categorisation is intended to support customers to navigate our website" and confirmed that following their latest review, the Acai Berry tablets "now sit within our Superfood category". Superdrug reported they had "paused all retailing of the highlighted product" and were reviewing the category in question. Temu stated they had "immediately removed the products listed in the report pending further review".
The Advertising Standards Authority spokeswoman reinforced that "our rules are clear that ads mustn't make unauthorised health, medical or weight-loss claims", particularly emphasising that ads cannot claim or imply that food supplements can provide effects associated with prescription-only weight loss medicines.
This investigation highlights significant ongoing challenges in regulating the rapidly expanding weight-loss supplement market, with consumer advocates calling for stronger enforcement and clearer guidance to protect consumers from misleading claims.
