In recent years, the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has undergone a quiet but profound transformation. Once an industry-funded, complaints-based ‘watchdog’ reacting to ‘public concerns’, the ASA is now operating as a proactive, AI-driven investigative force that actively scans the internet for ‘rule-breaking’ content. According to the ASA-CAP 2024 Annual Report, this shift is not just a change in method—it marks a fundamental redefinition of the ASA’s role in the UK’s advertising landscape.
This regulatory posture stands in stark contrast to the broader public interest in holistic and non-pharmaceutical approaches to health. It also risks limiting consumer choice by marginalising entire professions through the ASA’s non-statutory, privately enforced standards.
But why has this shift occurred? Is it a response to a lack of public complaints? Or is it part of a broader evolution in the face of today’s digital advertising challenges? And what does it mean for those working in complementary and alternative medicine, such as homeopaths?
A Watchdog Reborn: From Passive Listener to Active Enforcer
For decades, the ASA’s approach to regulation was reactive. The public or interest groups would raise complaints, and the ASA would investigate and, where necessary, issue rulings. This system relied on people noticing and reporting misleading or harmful content. But in 2024, that reactive model took a back seat.
According to its annual report, the ASA now handles the majority of its regulatory work before a single complaint is received. A staggering 94% of the 33,903 ads it sought to amend or have withdrawn in 2024 came from proactive monitoring, not complaints.
How is this possible? The ASA now uses advanced AI tools under a system it calls Active Ad Monitoring. This system scanned 28 million ads last year, identifying potential breaches of the ASA’s self-defined advertising rules in real time. This monitoring led to tens of thousands of advertisers being approached to remove or modify their content. Many of those ads were categorised as health related.
In contrast, only 6% of the ASA’s interventions were triggered by consumer complaints. This clearly signals a philosophical and operational shift: the ASA is no longer just a referee, responding to fouls as they happen—it’s now also the surveillance system, the camera crew, and the match commissioner.
Why the Shift?
While the ASA doesn’t explicitly say it was receiving too few complaints, one can infer from the data that relying solely on public vigilance was no longer effective in an era of fast-moving, high-volume digital advertising. With millions of ads appearing online daily—often fleetingly, across social media and websites—it’s unrealistic to expect the public to catch every ‘violation’; or could it be that the public does not share the views of the ASA’s paymasters?
Additionally, the ASA’s own strategy, dubbed “AI-assisted, collective ad regulation”, aims to shift more regulatory resources from reaction to prevention. This reflects a broader trend in regulation, where truly regulatory bodies seek to intervene earlier in the content or conduct pipeline.
So no, it’s not just about complaint volume. It’s also about scale, speed, and the desperate need to stay relevant in a rapidly evolving digital ecosystem.
But Who Regulates the Regulator?
Here’s where the situation becomes more complex. While the ASA calls itself the UK’s “frontline regulator” of advertising, it is not a government agency. It is a non-governmental, privately funded body that operates through a self-regulatory framework. Its funding comes from the advertising industry it oversees, primarily through a levy on ad spend.
This creates a paradox: the ASA presents itself as a watchdog protecting consumers, yet it is financially dependent on the very industry it is supposed to regulate. Moreover, it has no statutory powers. It cannot fine advertisers or enforce its rulings through the courts without external support.
Instead, the ASA relies on reputation, cooperation, and industry pressure. For example, non-compliant advertisers may find their ads delisted from major platforms like Google or Facebook—thanks to partnerships the ASA has built via its Intermediary and Platform Principles (IPPs).
While this model often works, it raises questions of legality and fairness, especially for smaller organisations and practitioners in alternative medicine fields who may not have the legal or financial means to challenge menacing claims or navigate complex legal-sounding texts.
The Implications for Homeopaths
For practitioners of homeopathy these changes should raise important concerns. The ASA’s proactive AI tools are increasingly targeting health-related advertising, including websites, blogs, and social media content. And these systems aren’t waiting for a complaint – they are searching out content deemed non-compliant and automatically flagging it for contact.
This is especially relevant because in recent years many ASA rulings have focused on claims made about complementary and alternative health practitioners. Ads that refer to treating or diagnosing named conditions – particularly chronic or serious ones – are likely to be flagged under the ASA’s rules, even if those statements are based on practitioners’ clinical experience or patient testimonials.
Moreover, the ASA appears to apply a conventional biomedical lens to these assessments. It does not formally recognise homeopathy’s principles or its long-standing use in clinical practice around the world. As a result, language that is standard in homeopathic consultations may be ‘judged’ by the ASA to be misleading or scientifically unsubstantiated.
This regulatory posture stands in stark contrast to the broader public interest in holistic and non-pharmaceutical approaches to health. It also risks limiting consumer choice by marginalising entire professions through the ASA’s non-statutory, privately enforced standards.
Homeopathy International: Defending Practitioners’ Rights
In this increasingly interventionist climate, the role of Homeopathy International (HINT) is more important than ever. HINT continues to represent homeopaths’ rights to communicate openly and ethically about their work, providing its membership robust guidance, legal support, and advocacy when navigating the ASA’s expanding web of private ‘regulation’.
HINT argues that homeopaths must be allowed to explain their approach to health in their own language, grounded in the realities of clinical practice and patient outcomes. It also calls for a balanced representation in regulatory decision-making, so that the diversity of healthcare approaches is respected rather than suppressed.
Most importantly, HINT believes that consumers have the right to access information about all available health options, not just those sanctioned by pharmaceutical or conventional medical standards.
Questions, challenges and accountability
The ASA’s transformation from a complaints-based arbitrator to a proactive digital enforcer represents a sea change in UK advertising regulation. Driven by AI and data science, it now exerts sweeping oversight over everything from social media posts to small business websites.
But as its influence grows, so too must the scrutiny of its methods and assumptions, especially when it comes to fields like homeopathy. Without formal accountability, democratic oversight, or statutory authority, the ASA’s actions must be continually questioned, particularly when they have the power to restrict public discourse and affect livelihoods.
Homeopathy International remains at the forefront of that challenge, standing firm for transparency, fairness, and the freedom to practice – and advertise – homeopathy ethically and legally in the UK.
To find out more or to become a member, visit www.hint.org.uk.