Two online adverts for autism “supplements” have been banned by the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), with the regulator finding the promotions from Customized Autism Treatment (CAT) and Onecare claimed their products could “alleviate” or “help prevent, treat, or cure traits” associated with the disability.

The rulings, published on Wednesday, form part of a wider piece of work carried out by the watchdog on autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), which saw the ASA’s active ad monitoring system use artificial intelligence to identify online adverts which might break advertising rules.

Under the Code published by the Committee for Advertising Practice (CAP), adverts containing nutrition or health claims can only be used in marketing communications if “listed” in “the applicable register”, while claims which “state or imply a food prevents, treats or cures human disease” are “not acceptable”.

In an advert on Facebook for Onecare’s AURA7, seen in February, the company claimed the supplement was “crafted to support children with autism by improving mood stability and cognitive function”, and also displayed text saying “ease the challenges of autism” and “no meltdowns and tantrums with AURA7”.

It also cited a study following 17 autistic children over a month and claimed “70% feel less irritated from sights, sounds or tastes”, “68% are able to engaged [sic] in conversations” and “65% feel comfortable adapting with routine changes”.

In its ruling, the ASA said it considered these claims “would be interpreted as references that the product could help manage the traits of autism or autism spectrum disorder (ASD)”, and therefore considered them to be “medicinal claims”, with the implication AURA7 had “medicinal properties”.

It said: “The AURA7 supplement was, in general terms, marketed as a food supplement. For the purposes of the legislation reflected in the Code, its prohibition on claims that a food (including food supplements), could prevent, treat, or cure symptoms of human disease included medicinal claims. We therefore concluded the claims to alleviate traits of autism or ASD fell under that prohibition.

“Additionally, because the ad made medicinal claims for the AURA7 supplement, it was defined as a medicinal product for the purposes of medicines legislation. Claims that a product had medicinal properties may only be made for a medicinal product that was authorised by the MHRA [Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency] or under the auspices of the EMA [European Medicines Agency].

“We understood Onecare Wellness did not hold such authorisation for the AURA7 supplement. We concluded the ad was therefore in breach of the Code’s requirements relating both to food supplements and to medicinal products.”

In response to the ASA’s enquiries, Onecare said they had paused the ad, along with several additional ads containing similar wording, and that they are “strengthening their international compliance process to ensure that future campaigns avoided direct references” to conditions such as autism, ADHD and dyslexia, only using claims “authorised on the GB Nutrition and Health Claims Register”.

They also said they have removed references to AURA7 from all UK-targeted ads and that internal controls have been implemented “to prevent any future advertising of the product to UK audiences”.

Although this was welcomed by the ASA, it still concluded the ad breached the CAP Code “because the ad stated and implied that the supplement could help prevent, treat or cure traits of autism and co-occurring conditions”.

The paid-for Google ad for CAT, meanwhile, was seen in June, and claimed the “autism recovery supplements” stem from “a growing body of research involving biologically-based practices” and that the company is “here to help you treat and manage your child’s autism”.

In its ruling, the ASA considered consumers were likely to understand such claims “to mean that the supplements referenced in the ad could treat and help manage the traits of autism or autism spectrum disorder (ASD)”, and that purports to alleviate traits of autism or ASD “fell under” the Code’s prohibition on claims – including medicinal claims – that a food or supplement “could prevent, treat, or cure symptoms of human disease”.

It said: “Because the ad made medicinal claims for the supplements, they were defined as medicinal products for the purposes of medicines legislation.

“Claims that a product had medicinal properties may only be made for a medicinal product that was authorised by the MHRA or under the auspices of the EMA.

“We understood C.A.T. did not hold such authorisation for the supplements. We concluded the ad was therefore in breach of the Code’s requirements relating both to food supplements and to medicinal products.”

TAYHLI, trading as CAT, told the ASA in response that the ad “was not intentionally created”, and that it may have appeared due to “an old default” in Dynamic Keyword Insertion (DKI).

DKI is defined as a tool which automatically places keywords in a paid-for ad which match an individual’s search, which TAYHLI described as “an automated feature that can insert outdated or unintended keywords”.

TAYHLI said it has taken actions “to prevent it happening again”.

Commenting on the two rulings, the National Autistic Society’s head of evidence and research, Dr Judith Brown said the charity hopes they “serve as a warning”.

Alluding to a claim in Onecare’s advert that an AURA7 sachet contains “essential nutrients that work through the gut-brain axis” and “[balance] gut microbiota to reduce anxiety”, Dr Brown continued: “Autism is a lifelong neurodivergence and disability, not a disease and cannot be treated or cured. There is no causal link between gut health and autism.

“It’s important that any social media content or adverts referring to autism include accurate information and signpost to evidence-based advice and guidance from organisations such as the National Autistic Society or the NHS.”

“Guidelines from the NHS and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) do not recommend gut microbiome interventions for autism.”

The charity also pointed to a study published in the Neuron journal last month, which identified “serious flaws, inconsistencies, and contradictions” in the evidence base and literature which “undermine any claims about the involvement of the gut microbiome in autism”.