Advertisers must take care to use language that is appropriate for their audience and avoid the use of strong or obscene language.
Section 2.5 of the AANA Code of Ethics states:
Advertising shall only use language which is appropriate in the circumstances (including appropriate for the relevant audience and medium). Strong or obscene language shall be avoided.
There are certain words and terms, such as the ‘f’ and the ‘c’ word, that when expressed in full are highly likely to breach the Code of Ethics.
Others are considered acceptable if the word or term is not used aggressively, where it is used in a colloquial context, where children are not likely to be exposed to it, or when it is obscured.
Ads that use sexualised double entendre are usually considered acceptable when there is a non-sexualised interpretation which could be understood by children.
For more detail and guidance on language in advertising read the AANA Code of Ethics: Practice Note.
Visit our education page to learn more or view a case study for language here.
Examples of previous decisions
Obscene terms
Examples of ads found in breach of Section 2.5 of the Code of Ethics:
| Summary | Case examples |
| The word ‘fuck’ expressed in full. | The Walt Disney Company – 2024 MILKRUN AU Pty Ltd – 2022 Honey Birdette – 2021 Amazon Prime Video – 2020 VentraIP – 2020 Universal Pictures – 2019, 2019 |
| The ‘c word’ expressed in full. | Clutch Co – 2023 Wicked Campers – 2019, 2019, 2019 |
Examples of ads found not in breach of Section 2.5 of the Code of Ethics:
| Summary | Case examples |
| There is a greater acceptability of some obscene terms in advertising which is unlikely to be seen or heard by children, where the terms are appropriate to the context of the advertisement or medium. | Southtrade International – 2020 |
| The term ‘shit’ is often considered not inappropriate, when consistent with common Australian colloquial usage of such a word. | Lowd – 2022 Galderma Australia – 2020 Prime Video – 2020 Canteen – 2020 |
Obscured terms
Examples of ads found in breach of Section 2.5 of the Code of Ethics:
| Summary | Case examples |
| Where sound effects have been used to cover someone using an obscene term, if they do not sufficiently cover the word and the term is likely to be considered as inappropriate by most members of the community. | Precision Suspension & Automotive – 2025 Construct Personnel – 2024 Athena – 2023 Warner Music Aust Pty Ltd – 2023 Alice Mechanical Solutions – 2020 |
Examples of ads found not in breach of Section 2.5 of the Code of Ethics:
| Summary | Case examples |
| Where a suggested obscenity is not used in full, and is not used in conjunction with offensive imagery, it is considered to not amount to an inappropriate use of language or language that would be considered strong or obscene. | MTV – 2021 ReAmped Energy – 2020 Lion Dairy & Drinks – 2020 Rusty – 2019 13Cabs – 2019, 2019 |
| The implication of a mild swear word in an advertisement through the use of an acronym, which is used in a way consistent with how most people would use the word, is not inappropriate and would not be considered strong or obscene language by most members of the community. | McGrath Estate Agents – 2020 |
| Where sound effects are used to successfully cover up terms, to the point of not being able to understand the term used, is appropriate for use. | Portable Fridge Solutions – 2020 Chemist Warehouse – 2019 Department of Health and Human Services (TAS) – 2018 |
| The use of a word similar to or rhyming with a word considered to be a swear word will generally be dismissed by the Panel. | Gympie Music Muster – 2021 Southern Cross Austereo – 2021 |
| Lyrics in background music which is not the focus of the ad. | Hommey – 2021 |
Innuendo and sexual references
Examples of ads found in breach of Section 2.5 of the Code of Ethics:
| Summary | Case examples |
| Explicit sexual terms or references in a medium that would be seen or heard by children. | Wicked Campers – 2019, 2020, 2020 |
Examples of ads found not in breach of Section 2.5 of the Code of Ethics:
| Summary | Case examples |
| The use of terms such as ‘sex’ in a sensitive way which is considered appropriate for the relevant audience. | A City Free From Porn Toowoomba – 2020 Amazon Prime Video – 2020 Frucor Suntory Australia – 2020 Prime Video – 2020 Lismore Theatre Company – 2019 |
| The use of very mild sexual language, where there is a more likely, non-sexual, interpretation of the language used. | Sojo Pty Ltd – 2021 Bush Chook – 2021 Subway Franchisee Advertising Fund – 2019 Touch Up Guys – 2019 Dr Drains – 2019 |
Acceptable terms
Examples of ads found not in breach of Section 2.5 of the Code of Ethics:
| Summary | Case examples |
| Slang terms for body parts that are commonly used. | Huddle – 2021 Bayer Australia – 2020 Hanes Brands Inc – 2019 Sojo – 2019 |
| While some members of the community may find certain colloquial terms to be offensive, where the language is not obscene or sexualised it may be considered appropriate for use in advertising. | ReAmped Energy – 2022 Sportsbet – 2022 Hoglights – 2021 Aussie Broadband – 2021 SA Police –2021 |
| The phrase ‘frigging’ or ‘effing’ when not used aggressively is not considered a strong or obscene term by the Community Panel, and is a term that most members of the community would view as a more acceptable replacement for stronger words. | BCF – 2020 |
Children using bad language
Examples of ads found in breach of Section 2.5 of the Code of Ethics:
Gestures
Examples of ads found not in breach of Section 2.5 of the Code of Ethics:
| Summary | Case examples |
| While in some context people sticking their middle fingers up is considered aggressive and inappropriate by the Community Panel, content containing the light-hearted depiction of people’s middle fingers is not likely to be seen as depicting aggressive or insulting behaviour. | Buddybet – 2022 News Corp – 2019 |