Violence should only be depicted in advertising if it is justifiable.
Section 2.3 of the AANA Code of Ethics states:
Advertising shall not present or portray violence unless it is justifiable in the context of the product or service advertised.
Violence includes both actual depictions of violence and suggested violence (e.g. a strong sense of menace or threat, sound effects).
In some circumstances, the portrayal of violence may be considered justified, such as in community awareness advertising or if the product being advertised contains violence (e.g. computer games or films).
Where violence is considered justified, it must not be excessive or gratuitous. If the level of violence is too high, it may not be considered justifiable even if it is relevant to the product or service being advertised.
The depiction of violence extends to the consequences of violence (e.g. depiction of an injured person not just the image of them being hurt), feelings of violation, shock and fright, and may involve:
- depictions that condone or incite violence
- intimidating behaviour
- abuse
- bullying
- domestic violence
- sexualised violence
- use of weapons
- vandalism and violence to property
- consensual violence
- aggressiveness
- a person injured or in pain
- aggressive action
- exposing oneself to dangerous activities
- threats
- accidents
- horror and gore
- human atrocities and massacres
- war
- torture
- exploitation and cruelty, including to animals.
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 violence here.
Examples of previous decisions
Community awareness ads
Examples of ads found in breach of Section 2.3 of the Code of Ethics:
| Summary | Case examples |
| Where the depiction of violence is not justifiable or related to what is being advertised | Cancer Council Victoria – 2022, 2022 |
Examples of ads found not in breach of Section 2.3 of the Code of Ethics:
| Summary | Case examples |
| Ads which portray realistic and graphic situations intended to evoke a strong reaction in the community in response to an important call to action, or awareness raising, is a justifiable use of violence. | SafeWork NSW – 2022 SA Ambulance Service – 2022 Transport Accident Commission –2022 Department of Social Services – 2021 Quit Tasmania – 2019 |
| Advertising which uses confronting and graphic imagery to promote important health services are a justifiable use of violence. | Cancer Council Western Australia – 2020 Channel Nine St Vincent de Paul Bushfire Appeal – 2019 Pedestrian Council of Australia Ltd – 2019 Dept Justice & Community Safety – Victoria – 2019 SA Health – 2019, 2019 |
| Ads which only reference violence, and do not depict it, to raise awareness about an important social issue. | Amnesty International – 2020 United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees – 2019 |
Domestic violence
Examples of ads found in breach of Section 2.3 of the Code of Ethics:
| Summary | Case examples |
| Any malicious threat of violence towards a partner, even in a fantasy situation, is unacceptable. | Betta Games – 2021 |
| Violence is not justifiable when promoting an unrelated product or service. | Uber Eats – 2021 |
Examples of ads found not in breach of Section 2.3 of the Code of Ethics:
| Summary | Case examples |
| An unlikely interpretation that an ad is suggestive of domestic violence. | Taste My Bean – 2019 |
| Light-hearted banter or disagreements between couples in safe and loving relationships, where the tone is not threatening or aggressive. | Optus Communications – 2021 Athena – 2020 Supagas – 2020 Yum Restaurants International – 2019 |
| Ads for literature apps or novels which include domestic violence in the storyline if advertised in a manner that is sensitive to the audience. | Dreame – 2020 |
Entertainment
Examples of ads found in breach of Section 2.3 of the Code of Ethics:
| Summary | Case examples |
| Ads for entertainment products where violence may be justifiable, but is likely to cause undue alarm or distress to members of the community. | BettaRoadshow Films – 2019, 2019, 2019 |
Examples of ads found not in breach of Section 2.3 of the Code of Ethics:
| Summary | Case examples |
| Depiction of characters from video games when advertising the game is a depiction that portrayed violence that is justifiable in the context of the product being sold. | Rockstar Games – 2022 Activision – 2021 Wildlife Studios – 2020 Take Two Interactive (2K Games) – 2020 Sony Interactive Entertainment – 2019 |
| When promoting acting schools, movies, events and shows, it is reasonable for the advertiser to show violent images or scenes related to the product being promoted. | Apple Pty Limited – 2022, 2022 Sony Pictures Releasing – 2021, 2022, 2022 Paramount+ – 2021 The Walt Disney Company – 2021 Binge – 2021 |
| Movie trailers which suggest violence through suspenseful and menacing tones which are relevant to the movie’s content. | Universal Pictures – 2021, 2022, 2022 Paramount Pictures Australia – 2019, 2022, 2022 DreamStan – 2020, 2020 Sony Pictures – 2019, 2020, 2021 Roadshow Films – 2019, 2019, 2019 |
Weaponry
Examples of ads found in breach of Section 2.3 of the Code of Ethics:
| Summary | Case examples |
| Ads which show weapons used in a threatening or violent manner when not related to the product being promoted. | Club-Mate Australia – 2021 |
Examples of ads found not in breach of Section 2.3 of the Code of Ethics:
| Summary | Case examples |
| The use of a weapon in an ad which is unrealistic, exaggerated and humorous, and where the use of weapons is clearly fantasy and unlikely to encourage similar behaviour in real life. | iSelect Pty Ltd – 2019 |
| The depiction of a gun or other weapon in the promotion of a game, movie or show that features weapons is justifiable, if that weapon is not being depicted in an overly threatening or alarming manner. | Paramount+ – 2021 Roadshow Films – 2019, 2019 Ubisoft – 2019 |
Cruelty to animals
Examples of ads found in breach of Section 2.3 of the Code of Ethics:
| Summary | Case examples |
| The depiction of people interacting with animals in a cruel or unhealthy way which could be copied. | Brand Developers – 2020 |
| Depiction of simulated animal cruelty in an ad for a gaming app. | Special Gamez – 2022 |
Examples of ads found not in breach of Section 2.3 of the Code of Ethics:
| Summary | Case examples |
| The depiction of confronting but not violent imagery to raise awareness of animal cruelty. | World Animal Protection – 2021 PETA Australia – 2021 |
| The depiction of people interacting with animals in a realistic manner, where the animal is not seen to come to any harm is not considered cruelty to animals. | ReAmped Energy – 2022 Tom Waterhouse – 2019 |
| The depiction of animal hunting or fishing when related to legal practices. | Victorian Department of Health and Human Services – 2021 |
| Where an ad is humorous and/or unlikely to be real or taken seriously by the general community. | Uber Australia Pty Ltd –2022 Specsavers – 2021 Aldi Australia – 2020 |
Bullying
Examples of ads found in breach of Section 2.3 of the Code of Ethics:
| Summary | Case examples |
| Any depictions or threat of violence towards a person will be seen as bullying, especially if the person on the receiving end of the actions reacts in a hurt or negative manner. | AHM Health Insurance – 2020, 2020 |
Examples of ads found not in breach of Section 2.3 of the Code of Ethics:
Sex and violence
Examples of ads found in breach of Section 2.3 of the Code of Ethics:
| Summary | Case examples |
| The suggestion of children being the target of sexual assault or predatory behaviour will breach this Section of the Code. | Grill’d – 2021 |
| Depictions or suggestions of sexual violence through words or images. | Sax Fetish –2021 Wicked Campers – 2019 |
Examples of ads found not in breach of Section 2.3 of the Code of Ethics:
Depictions of pain
Examples of ads found not in breach of Section 2.3 of the Code of Ethics:
Suggestions of violence
Examples of ads found in breach of Section 2.3 of the Code of Ethics:
| Summary | Case examples |
| Depicting a person with the intent to physically harm another person where a high degree of malice is present, even if no actual violence depicted. | App Quantum – 2021 Rollic Games – 2021 Gem Puzzle Dom – 2020, 2020, 2020 |
Examples of ads found not in breach of Section 2.3 of the Code of Ethics:
Other violence
Examples of ads found in breach of Section 2.3 of the Code of Ethics:
| Summary | Case examples |
| The use of an unnecessarily high degree of menace which is not related to the product being advertised. | IAG Insurance – 2020 |
| The depiction of violence in a way that is not relevant to the product/service being advertised. | Brickworks Building Products – 2022, 2022 iSelect Pty Ltd – 2022 Raiz Invest Ltd – 2022 Kayo Sports – 2020, 2020 |
| The reference to or depiction of suicide without providing appropriate referral information. | Sonus Complete – 2020 Wicked Campers – 2019 |
Examples of ads found not in breach of Section 2.3 of the Code of Ethics:
| Summary | Case examples |
| Advertising which uses humorous or exaggerated scenes which are clearly fantastical and unlikely to be taken seriously by most members of the community. | Raiz Invest Ltd – 2022 Grill’d – 2021 Frucor Suntory Australia – 2021 The Man Shake – 2020 Westpac Group – 2020 |
| Depictions of people acting in a humorous, light-hearted manner are unlikely to be considered as being acts of violence. | Reckon Limited – 2021 OPSM – 2020 Tabcorp Holdings Limited – 2019 |
| Depicting extensive body modification through tattoos and piercings. | Icon Ink – 2022 |
| Depicting a kiss where there is no explicit consent given, but also no indication that the kiss is not consensual. | Mars Wrigley Australia – 2023 Procter & Gamble Australia Pty Ltd –2022 |