Discrimination or vilification

Advertisers must take care not to portray or depict material in a way that discriminates against or vilifies a person or group.

Section 2.1 of the AANA Code of Ethics states:

Advertising or Marketing Communications shall not portray people or depict material in a way which discriminates against or vilifies a person or section of the community on account of race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, age, sexual preference, religion, disability, mental illness or political belief.

Discrimination means unfair or less favourable treatment.

Vilification means content which humiliates or intimidates, or incites hatred, contempt or ridicule.

For more detail and guidance on the portrayal of people in advertising read the AANA Code of Ethics: Practice Note.  

Visit our education page to learn more or view a case study for discrimination or vilification here.

Examples of previous decisions
Age

Examples of ads found in breach of Section 2.1 of the Code of Ethics:

SummaryCase examples
Depicting older people being treated less favourably or being mocked or ridiculed.Strangelove – 2025
Hayeswinckle – 2023
LTD Rentals – 2020
Depicting older people as helpless or incapable.Simply Helping – 2023

Examples of ads found not in breach of Section 2.1 of the Code of Ethics:

SummaryCase examples
Depicting older people in ads through non-negative stereotypes.mycar Tyre & Auto – 2024 
Red Rooster – 2023
Uber Australia Pty Ltd – 2021
Depicting an aspect of aging is not itself discriminatory towards older people.KAAIAA – 2025 
Thin Lizzy – 2022 
SA Police – 2022
Portraying older people as sexual beings.Network Gaming Tasmania – 2022
Depicting an older person learning to use technologyUber Australia – 2024
Telstra – 2020
GoDaddy,com – 2019
Promoting home help services, or aged care facilities and residents, in a way that doesn’t imply that older people are incapable of looking after themselves.Alpha Support at Home – 2024
Simply Helping – 2024
Using common colloquial phrases like ‘old mate’ to refer to an older personBrooks Hire – 2020
Using common colloquial phrases like ‘Boomer’ to describe an older generation. Nando’s Australia – 2023
Disability or mental illness

Examples of ads found in breach of Section 2.1 of the Code of Ethics:

SummaryCase examples
Demonstrating insensitivity or trivialising a debilitating condition.Our Cow – 2024
4WD SupaCentre – 2022
Lotterywest – 2020
Portraying people with a disability or mental illness as being treated less favourably, or depicted in a mocking, foolish manner.Hearing Australia – 2025 
Panel House – 2025
Foxtel – 2023
Nimble – 2022
Describing a mental illness as a “disease”, or implying that neurodivergent people need to be cured.Children’s Medical Research Institute/Jeans for Genes – 2024 

Examples of ads found not in breach of Section 2.1 of the Code of Ethics:

SummaryCase examples
Depicting someone who is angry, frustrated or acting unusually, does not itself imply they have a disability or mental illness. Meat & Livestock Australia – 2025
The Blind Factory – 2024
eBay Australia & New Zealand – 2023 
Yum Restaurants International – 2021
LG Electronics Aust Pty Ltd – 2019
Depicting a certain physical characteristic that may correlate with a disability, does not itself make direct reference to a disability.Kia Australia – 2025
Metro Trains – 2024
ALDI Australia – 2023 
Rest – 2024
Depicting a person with a disability in a way that is humorous but not shown to demean or mock the person.Specsavers Pty Ltd – 2024
Specsavers Pty Ltd – 2023 
Specsavers Pty Ltd – 2022 
Gender

Examples of ads found in breach of Section 2.1 of the Code of Ethics:

SummaryCase examples
Suggesting that men who defer to their partner should be ridiculed or thought less of.Sportsbet – 2020  
Reducing women to sexual objects presents women in a manner which is degrading and shows them in an unfair or less favourable manner when there is no relation to the product or service being advertised.A1 Mobile Safety Certificates – 2024
Orchard Piper – 2024
Wicked Campers – 2021
Referencing transgender individuals using terms that are derogatory and vilifying.Wicked Campers – 2022
Unintelligible, domineering or humiliating depictions of, or references to, women will breach the Code.Unibet – 2022
Bang Hero – 2020  
Sportsbet – 2019
Referencing a negative gender stereotype, such as women being less capable then menXCEM AlphaFloor – 2026 
Schweitzer Estate Agents – 2025 
Pacific Marine – 2025
ME Bank – 2024
Aveling Homes – 2022  
The BOSS Shop – 2022
Wicked Campers – 2021
Depicting women being treated less favourably, or being mocked or ridiculed.Spotminders – 2026 
Famity – 2026 
Easy Tiger St Helens – 2025 
Panel House – 2025 
Microfun – 2024 
Gyna Fertility – 2024

Examples of ads found not in breach of Section 2.1 of the Code of Ethics:

SummaryCase examples
Depicting young boys and girls playing with toys or with personality traits traditionally stereotyped to their gender is not of itself a breach.Hasbro Australia – 2021
Ferrero Australia – 2020
PharmaCare – 2020
Depicting men and women in roles reflective of gender stereotypes when the stereotypes are not negative and there is no suggestion that the roles are limited to a particular gender.BIG W – 0312-25
Rexel Electrical Supplies – 2024
SA Police – 2024
Clorox Australia – 2023
Drakes Supermarkets – 2022
MediPro Capital Finance – 2022
SocietyOne – 2021
Appearing to be targeted towards one gender is not itself discriminatory.Caruso’s Natural Health – 2026
Department of Transport Victoria – 2023
Medex Australia – 2021
Using common colloquial phrasing, such as ‘are you man enough’.Specialist Breast Clinic – 2023
Schnithouse Hilton – 2021
Referencing baldness is not inherently discriminatory towards men.Mosh – 2021  
Depicting a woman as more in control of a situation than a man is not itself discriminatory towards men.Rascals International Limited – 2026
Toyota Motor Corporation Australia – 2020
Toyota Motor Corporation Australia – 2020
Electrolux Home Products – 2019
Referring to violence against women and depicting a man as the perpetrator, or community service ads showing a man as the perpetrator, is not itself discriminatory towards men.Bravehearts Foundation – 2025
Department of Social Services – 2024 
Department of Social Services –  2021
SA Police – 2021
Advertising treatments for erectile dysfunction is not itself discriminatory towards men.Bergamet – 2020
Hanes Brands – 2020
Depicting men as incompetent, inexperienced, or foolish in one situation does not itself suggest that this same situation applies to all men, or that it is specific to men.Lactalis Australia – 2024
Koh – 2024
Unicharm Australasia – 2023
Arrotex Pharmaceuticals – 2023
Massel Australia – 2021
Wisr – 2021
Depicting a woman as embarrassed or foolish in one situation does not itself suggest that this same situation applies to all women, or that it is specific to women.Youi – 2024
Super Cheap Auto Pty Ltd – 2021
Yum Restaurants – 2021
Using female stereotypes in a way that is not negative is not itself discriminatory towards women.Newscorp Australia – 2023
AHM Health Insurance – 2021
ALDI Australia – 2020
Featuring topics like menstruation or incontinence is not inherently discriminatory towards women.Essity Australiasia Pty Ltd – 2026 
Caruso’s Natural Health – 2025
Asaleo Care – 2021
Modibodi – 2020 
Kimberly-Clark – 2020
Suggesting that a person may not want to have children is not discriminatory towards parents or children.Doctors on Demand – 2021

Ethnicity, race or nationality

Examples of ads found in breach of Section 2.1 of the Code of Ethics:

SummaryCase examples
Depicting someone of a particular race, ethnicity or nationality being feared by other people leaving a negative impression of people of that ethnicity.University of Sydney – 2017
Depicting immigrants/refugees in a negative way.Trelly’s Tackle World Shepparton – 2017
Depicting a person or a country as inferior to others because of race, ethnicity or nationality.Makin Mattresses – 2023 
Maze Distributions – 2020
Mocking or being likely to give a negative impression of a particular race, ethnicity or nationality.L & J Webb Fencing – 2026 
Panel House – 2025
Pinocchio’s Pizza – 2023 
Leaf Chief – 2023 
Newsome Tyre & Mechanical – 2022  
Using mocking or ridiculing references to how another culture is different, such as their names sounding different.Sportsbet – 2021
Using stereotypes of a particular race, ethnicity or nationality that is dehumanising or fetishising. Good Folk Brewing Co – 2023

Examples of ads found not in breach of Section 2.1 of the Code of Ethics:

SummaryCase examples
Using only one race, ethnicity or nationality in an ad is not itself discriminatory towards other races.Sumo Power Pty Ltd – 2026 
InstantScripts – 2022
Menulog – 2020
Localsearch – 2020
Using stereotypes of different nationalities where the stereotypes are not negative or derogatory.Sportsbet – 2024 
Uber Australia – 2023 
Pointsbet Australia Pty Limited – 2022
IKEA – 2022
Using people in situations where there is no reference to or focus on the person’s ethnicity and where it is not suggested that they are representative of all people of that ethnicity is not inherently discriminatory.Lyka Pet Food – 2026 
Ring LLC – 2025 
Yum Restaurants International – 2024 
Australian Liquor Marketers – 2024
ALDI Australia – 2023
Uber Australia – 2023
Telstra – 2023
Western Sydney Care Collective – 2023
Kenzo – 2023
Using an international accent in a way which does not mock the country it is from is not discriminatory.Thirsty Camel – 2024 
Bayswater Car Rental – 2023
IKEA – 2022
Using a fictional culture that bears similarities to a real culture or ethnicity is not itself discriminatory.Carlton and United breweries – 2022
Religion

Examples of ads found in breach of Section 2.1 of the Code of Ethics:

SummaryCase examples
Depicting an important religious belief in a demeaning way.Valley Butchers – 2019
Gifting Life – 2018

Examples of ads found not in breach of Section 2.1 of the Code of Ethics:

SummaryCase examples
Using imagery related to religious holidays such as Christmas or Easter, along with relevant visuals e.g. visuals of a decorated tree and a man dressed as Santa Claus or rabbits and chocolate eggs, is not inherently discriminatory towards Christianity.Myer Pty Ltd – 2024
Aldi Australia – 2021
Take Two Interactive (2K Games) – 2020
Hanes Brands Inc – 2019
Using phrases like ‘Thank God’ and ‘Jesus’ is not itself discriminatory on the basis of religion.ALDI Australia – 2024
Scaffwise – 2020  
SBS Corporation – 2019
Using religiously affiliated music and themes in ads for non-religious based products is not itself discriminatory on the basis of religion.Old Richmond Cellars – 2025
DiDi – 2025
Repco (GPC Asia Pacific) – 2024
ALDI Australia – 2024
Saintly Beverages – 2020
Referencing or depicting religious figures which don’t identify a specific religion is not itself discriminatory.Telstra – 2025
Activision Blizzard Pty Ltd – 2023
Burger Urge – 2023
Sportsbet – 2023

Scroll to Top