Ad Standards rulings ignored as brands fall short on accountability
Advertisers found to have breached the AANA Code of Ethics on social media platforms such as Youtube, Instagram, and Tiktok are increasingly showing little to no accountability, evident in four recent Ad Standards rulings.
Despite clear breaches, brands are failing to respond or take corrective action, underlining the difficulty of enforcement and lack of responsibility in the digital advertising space.
A Youtube ad from Amazon Prime Video for its new movie “Sinners” breached Section 2.5 (Language) of the Code of Ethics, for “strong and obscene language”. The Community Panel noted that the advertisement included the words “fuck” and “fucked”. While they were censored in the accompanying captions, they were clear in the audio.
The ad consisted of a 47-second clip from the MA15+ film, with dialogue between two characters. The characters can be seen arguing, with the strong language also including an American slang term for female genitalia.
The complainant pointed out “serious concern” for if the ad was being used to target kids to see the movie.
Of the four cases noted in this article, Amazon was the only advertiser to respond.
The streamer said it specifically targeted the ad at persons aged 18 or over, and children viewing it would be “highly unlikely” to understand the slang word reference as its “not widely recognised” in Australia.
Amazon therefore argued the ad is not inappropriate, and asked that the complaint be dismissed. It its response to Ad Standards, it did, however, confirm the advertisement was no longer running.
Meanwhile, auto parts shop Panel House breached Sections 2.1 (Discrimination or Vilification), 2.3 (Violence), and 2.5 (Language) for two separate Tiktok ads.
The first featured a man playing a game of ten pin bowling in a shed with dolls. He calls it “the DSBBL – Down Syndrome baby bowling [league]”. The ad also features strong language including “fuck” and “bitch”, with the caption saying “they’ll have a field day with this one”.
The Community Panel found it dehumanises people with a disability, portraying them as “deserving of less favourable treatment”, and that the violence in the ad was not justifiable in the context of promoting auto parts.
While it acknowledged that followers of Panel House may be unlikely to be offended by the strong language, the Community Panel noted Tiktok’s algorithm also serves videos to people outside of direct followers. It said the language is therefore inappropriate in the context of the wider Tiktok community.
The second from Panel House trivialised domestic violence and discrimination, when a woman walks in with makeup on her eyes designed to look like bruises, and a man makes assumptions that she’s not good at listening.
This ad was found to incite ridicule of domestic violence victim-survivors, similarly showing them as deserving unfair or less favourable treatment. Like the first ad, this piece was also not justifiable in the context of promoting auto parts, according to the Community Panel.
Panel House did not provide a response to the upheld decisions.
The cases were therefore referred to Tiktok, and have since been removed by the social media platform.
Finally, alcohol brand Wet Pussy Shot breached Section 2.2 (Exploitative or Degrading) of the Code of Ethics for “employ[ing] sexual appeal in a manner which is degrading to the woman” in the ad.
The Instagram post features a video of a person taking a bottle of the alcohol from a fridge to pour a shot. It is accompanied by text that reads: “Grabbing this wet pvssy (sic) coz I can’t get hers.” The post is captioned with “hard times #relatable”.
The complainant argued the ad reinforces a “negative masculine ideology”, by sexualising women in an exploitative manner.
While the panel noted the name of the product is explicitly linked to female sexual arousal, the use of the phrase “get hers” reduces the woman to a singular body part. It said this implies that “her only value to the man in the advertisement lies in her sexual availability”.
Again, the advertiser did not respond in this case. It has been referred to Meta.
The case has also been referred to the Alcohol Beverages Advertising Code (ABAC) Scheme — the centrepiece of alcohol marketing regulation in Australia — for potential assessment.
While the Ad Standards website outlines that the “high level of compliance with the advertising rules and Ad Standards Community Panel decisions reflects the industry’s commitment to responsible advertising practices and the effectiveness of the self-regulatory system”, the recent lack of accountability begs to differ.
In a statement sent to Mumbrella, Ad Standards’ new executive director Greg Wallace said: “Ad Standards takes compliance seriously. In these cases, three of the four ads were modified or removed by the advertiser or platform following our intervention – a clear demonstration that the self-regulatory system works and is respected by the majority of advertisers and media platforms.
“While some outliers choose not to comply, this does not reflect the broader industry, which overwhelmingly supports responsible advertising. We expect all advertisers and platforms to take swift action on rulings and uphold community standards without exception.”
Mumbrella has contacted Tiktok and Meta for comment in regards to the referred cases.
Keep up to date with the latest in media and marketing
Got a tip?
Lauren McNamara is a freelance journalist contributing to Mumbrella. She previously spent three years at the publication, most recently as the associate editor. She first joined in 2022 after completing a Bachelor of Communications (Journalism) at UTS. She left her staff role at Mumbrella in August 2025.
Linkedin
topics
AANA
ad standards
ads
Amazon
Amazon Prime Video
breach
Code of Ethics
Instagram
Meta
Panel House
TikTok
YouTube
Have your say