UK Drops Planned Alcohol Advertising Curbs After Industry Lobbying

The UK government’s 10 Year Health Plan for England was published in July 2025, but it contained no new restrictions on alcohol advertising. This was a surprise: prior leaks and government statements had indicated that tighter marketing rules - on TV, online, social media and event sponsorship - were under consideration. An investigation by the Institute of Alcohol Studies (IAS) used Freedom of Information requests to show that alcohol producers and industry bodies had actively pressed ministers to remove those measures. The IAS report concludes that brewers and pub groups targeted the Health Secretary and the Department of Health, and even rallied other departments (Business, Trade, Culture and the Treasury) to intervene on their behalf. In short, industry lobbying succeeded in keeping the proposed ad curbs out of the final plan.

‍

Industry Lobbying Effort

In the weeks before the plan’s release, leading companies and trade associations sent urgent letters and emails to senior officials. For example, Greene King - which operates thousands of pubs and breweries - warned that any ban on advertising before a TV watershed would have a “crippling impact” on UK pubs and brewers. Heineken similarly urged ministers not to proceed, and the British Beer and Pub Association (BBPA) expressed concern that new rules would “impede growth and investment” in the sector. BBPA and Heineken even insisted they “support efforts to improve public health and tackle inequalities”, framing their argument as co-operative while in fact resisting regulation. In one striking example, Budweiser wrote directly to the Chancellor, pleading: “As Chancellor, we urge that you make immediate representations to the Department of Health and ensure that these restrictions are not enforced”. Such correspondence shows how the industry sought allies across government to overturn the policy.

• Economic impact claims. Companies warned ministers that advertising limits would harm jobs, investment and economic growth. Greene King’s letter to the Health Department used the phrase “crippling impact” on pubs and brewers. Budweiser argued that curbs would defy the new “pro-business” government’s pledges and asked the Treasury to intervene.
  
  
• Self-regulation and social responsibility. Alcohol groups emphasized voluntary measures, noting support for public health while stressing existing industry codes. Both BBPA and Heineken wrote to health officials “We support efforts to improve public health and tackle inequalities”, a nod to social responsibility that was used to argue against more rules.
  
  
• Advertising of low-alcohol products. Heineken highlighted its marketing of no- and low-alcohol beer. It pointed to an ITV soap opera campaign featuring “pints of zero” (Heineken 0.0) in pub scenes, claiming this campaign has helped “normalise alcohol-free choices”. The IAS report notes, however, that the Heineken 0.0 logo is almost identical to the regular beer brand, meaning the soap placement still advertises Heineken itself before the 9pm watershed.
  
  

Despite these arguments, health experts say the industry claims are misleading. The IAS highlights that consumption and alcohol-related harms have actually been rising, and that evidence shows marketing does increase drinking (especially among young people). In fact, the World Health Organization lists stricter marketing controls as a “best buy” strategy to reduce alcohol harm. Public health analysts argue that voluntary advertising codes have repeatedly failed to protect young people and that stronger government rules were needed.

‍

Implications for Brand Owners

For now, brands and advertisers have retained broad freedom to market products as before. However, this episode carries lessons for alcohol C-suite and marketing leaders:

• Balance marketing with social responsibility. Even without new legal limits, companies should double down on responsible advertising. Emphasize moderation and clearly enforce age checks in campaigns. If promoting non-alcohol beers or low-ABV products, do so transparently (unlike the Heineken example) so that consumers don’t confuse them with full-strength variants.
  
  
• Prepare for future regulations. The political climate could shift again. Public polling (e.g. by Public First) shows most people want health prioritized over business growth. Global bodies like WHO and local public health reviews continue to advocate ad restrictions. Brands should engage constructively if future proposals emerge, perhaps by supporting effective self-regulation instead of opposing health measures outright.
  
  
• Leverage brand portfolios. Diversify messaging to include products with no or low alcohol in a credible way. Promote innovation in healthier choices. Some brands use campaigns around non-alcoholic drinks to demonstrate social responsibility; such efforts can build goodwill if done authentically.
  
  
• Communicate openly. Transparently articulate company support for public health goals. If you do lobby, be mindful that private communications may later become public. The IAS report shows that letters emphasizing a pro-growth narrative were uncovered by FOI requests. Brands should have clear internal policies on policy engagement and conflict-of-interest to maintain trust with consumers and policymakers.
  
  

In summary, the industry’s recent lobbying has kept strict ad bans at bay - a short-term win for alcohol companies. Yet health authorities remain concerned. The removal of the curbs does not mean the debate is over. C-suite and brand leaders should use this respite to strengthen long-term strategy: continue marketing actively, but align campaigns with evidence on moderate consumption and stay prepared for possible future regulatory changes. By proactively demonstrating social responsibility and engaging in policy discussions, brands can navigate this changing landscape while building consumer trust and sustainable growth.