Advertising in Australia is governed by complex laws and industry self-regulation.
Most businesses are familiar with the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) in Schedule 2 of the Australian Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) and administered by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. A key requirement of the ACL, as relevant to advertising, is that businesses should not engage in conduct in trade or commerce that is likely to mislead or deceive.
An often-overlooked aspect of Australia's broader advertising landscape is the self-regulatory framework established and operated by the advertising industry. The Australian Association of National Advertisers (AANA) has developed various advertising codes, which overlap in principle with the ACL and prescribe additional rules that reflect prevailing community standards* about what is appropriate in advertising content. Among these, the AANA Code of Ethics, deals with matters including the discriminatory/vilifying portrayal of people, violence, treatment of sex, sexuality and nudity, appropriate language, health and safety, and clearly distinguishable advertising. Other codes exist for certain goods, such as food and beverages and motor vehicles. Adherence to these codes is determined by Ad Standards, Australia's independent advertising body.
Members of the public can lodge a complaint to Ad Standards about any advertisement which may be in breach of the AANA advertising codes. Those complaints are reviewed by the Ad Standards Community Panel – a body composed of individuals from various age groups and backgrounds, unaffiliated with the advertising industry. If the Community Panel upholds a complaint, the advertiser will be notified and will have two days to amend or remove the advertisement. Whilst not legally enforceable, as case reports will include the advertiser's response and detail any action taken, most advertisers generally comply with adverse determinations of the Community Panel in order to avoid consequences such as reputational damage. Significant issues of non-compliance may also become the subject of media reports and/or be forwarded to publishers who can remove the content.
A separate mechanism, the Ad Standards Industry Jury, exists to deal with complaints between industry competitors that might otherwise lead to litigation.
Businesses in the fashion and beauty sectors are regularly the subject of complaints determined by the Ad Standard Community Panel, and we explore the outcome of recent complaints below.
Complaints relating to breaches of health and safety provisions
The AANA Code of Ethics states that advertising 'shall not depict material contrary to Prevailing Community Standards on health and safety'. This includes the portrayal of 'body shapes or features that are unrealistic or unattainable through healthy practices' and 'images of unsafe driving, bike riding without helmets or not wearing a seatbelt while driving a motor vehicle'. Since early-September 2025, Ad Standards has published four decisions in relation to alleged breaches of this health and safety provision.
1. Bec + Bridge (women's fashion)
In September 2025, Ad Standards received a complaint that the Bec + Bridge website showed an ad which featured 'unhealthily thin models and [promoted] harmful body image'. The website banner featured three women in various poses, dressed in white clothing, as the cover image under the 'New Arrivals' heading.
In coming to its determination, the Community Panel considered a variety of factors including the models' poses, makeup, lighting and photography – with the panel noting that the style of makeup and photography made the models' faces look 'pale and gaunt'. The complaint was ultimately upheld by the Community Panel, and Bec + Bridge discontinued use of the asset.
View the full case report.
2. AJE (women's fashion)
In September 2025, Ad Standards received a complaint that an ad published to Facebook by AJE featured models who 'appear excessively underweight' and claimed that the ad promoted 'extreme thinness as aspirational'. The ad featured a variety of images that showed two different products. The same model was used in each of the images.
In coming to its determination, the Community Panel considered the model's poses (some of which accentuated her collarbones and scapulae).
Although the same model appeared in all images, the majority of the Community Panel opined that the images depicting the second product did not promote an unrealistic body image that would be unattainable through healthy practices. It was considered that the images of the second product focused on showcasing the product itself and that the model was not posed in a way that accentuated thinness. In relation to the first product, the complaint was upheld. The images of the first product were discontinued and no longer appear on the AJE website.
It is important to note that the Community Panel acknowledged that it could not make a determination on whether the model was actually unhealthy.
View the full case report.
3. Leo Lin (women's fashion)
In October 2025, Ad Standards received a complaint that an Instagram ad by the @leolin_official page depicted an unhealthy body image. The ad was a video featuring an influencer styling and modelling pieces from the brand's collection.
In this case, the Community Panel dismissed the complaint and found that the ad did not breach the AANA Code of Ethics. The panel acknowledged that it would be unreasonable to assume that a model is unhealthy purely by virtue of being 'small in stature'. They considered that the model appeared happy and healthy, and that the advertisement did not communicate any specific messages about body type, eating habits or exercise.
View the full case report.
4. Mister Zimi (women's fashion)
In September 2025, Ad Standards received a complaint that an ad published to Facebook by Mister Zimi showed a 'woman riding a bicycle without a helmet while picking up coffee and going to a sale' and that this 'risks influencing [young women] to view unsafe cycling as acceptable'. The ad was a video featuring a model cycling through a European city without a helmet. At various times while cycling, the model was applying lipstick, drinking a coffee and holding a handbag.
Although the ad was filmed overseas, the Community Panel noted that it was being advertised to an Australian audience and should therefore be consistent with Australian community standards. The Community Panel therefore considered the community standards in Australia. It determined that cycling without a helmet and undertaking 'distracting behaviours' while cycling is contrary to the Prevailing Community Standards on health and safety. The complaint was upheld by the Community Panel, and Mister Zimi discontinued the ad.
View the full case report.
Complaints for breach of sex, sexuality and nudity provisions
The AANA Code of Ethics states that advertising 'shall treat sex, sexuality and nudity with sensitivity to the relevant audience' and that it 'shall not employ sexual appeal in a manner which is exploitative or degrading of any individual or group of people'. Ad Standards has recently published a number of decisions in relation to alleged breaches of sex, sexuality and nudity provisions.
1. Cotton On (women's, men's and children's fashion)
In September 2025, Ad Standards received a complaint that a sponsored Facebook ad for Cotton On portrayed nudity in breach of the AANA Code of Ethics. The ad featured a model dressed in a sheer bralette and shorts.
The Community Panel ultimately dismissed the complaint. Whilst it acknowledged that there was partial nudity in the advertisement, the panel considered that the model was not posed in a sexualised manner. Further, the product was depicted factually and did not sensationalise or focus on the nudity of the model.
View the full case report.
2. Ghanda Clothing (women's, men's and children's fashion)
In September 2025, Ad Standards received a complaint about an email marketing campaign for Father's Day which featured the acronym 'DILF' (commonly understood to mean 'Dad I'd Like to F***'). The complaint claimed that the campaign 'didn't really think about the issue of incest' and that the use of DILF was offensive. The email featured images of the products (mainly t-shirts) and included the text "Use Code DILF for free shipping", "Deck out Dad. The DILF is back, and he brought friends. Three new limited-edition tees plus a full capsule of DILF approved gear, just in time for Father's Day", and "For the DILFs, Deck out Dad with our top picks from the Damn, I love Fishin' Collection".
Ghanda Clothing noted that the use of 'DILF' in their campaign and on their apparel was an acronym for 'Damn I Love Fishing' and stated that the email depicted 'wholesome father son activities while [the] model is wearing [the] "Damn I Love Fishing" capsule tees'.
The Community Panel dismissed the complaint. It considered that whilst the acronym 'DILF' is commonly understood to mean 'Dad I'd Like to F***', that was not the intended meaning in this campaign and there were no depictions of and/or references to sex, sexuality or nudity.
View the full case report.
3. OUAI (haircare)
In October 2025, Ad Standards received a complaint that a poster ad displayed in a shopfront was 'inappropriate for a broad audience that would include children'. The poster shows a woman wearing a tan bodysuit and heels, spraying dry shampoo (the advertised product) in her hair. The woman is posed to the side, with her right leg and side of her thigh/buttock visible.
The Community Panel dismissed the complaint. The Community Panel opined that the image was not overtly sexual – the model was not posed in an overtly sexual way, was not nude, and was not engaging in sexual behaviour. It was considered that the ad therefore did not contain imagery that would be harmful to children and did not breach the AANA Code of Ethics.
View the full case report.
4. Honey Birdette (women's lingerie)
In October 2025, Ad Standards received a complaint that two posters displayed in the shopfront were 'inappropriate for public display in malls where children are engaging in holiday entertainment nearby' and that they objectified women. Poster 1 featured a woman wearing lingerie, including a collar with leash attached (which she was holding the end of). Poster 2 features the same woman in a similar pose, however with another woman standing next to her.
The Community Panel dismissed the complaint. The Community Panel considered that although sexual appeal was apparent (i.e. the models were dressed in lingerie), it was not presented in an exploitative or degrading manner and the posters treated sex and sexuality with sufficient sensitivity to the broad audience.
View the full case report.
5. Wear Nala (women's underwear)
In January 2025, Ad Standards received a complaint that an Instagram post on the @wear_nala Instagram page portrayed nudity. The post featured two images of a model wearing a sheer bra and underwear, with the caption "It's giving corporate". In the first image, the model was posed lying on her side with her legs slightly apart and was leaning towards the camera (placed below). In the second image, the model was posed standing up, with one hand placed on her leg / hip. The post was not run as a sponsored ad on Instagram and only appeared on the brand's profile.
The Community Panel upheld the complaint. The Community Panel acknowledged that the images contained partial nudity and considered that the pose of the model in the first image was sexualised. Although the post was not run as a sponsored ad, the Community Panel noted that Instagram's community standards required female nipples to be covered 'except in a breastfeeding, mastectomy, medical, health or act of protest context'. Accordingly, the Community Panel opined that most Instagram users would expect posts to comply with Instagram's community standards and therefore the ad did not treat nudity with sensitivity to the audience (being Instagram users).
Wear Nala did not provide a response to the decision and the ad was referred to Meta. Meta confirmed that the content was subsequently restricted to an audience over the age of 18 years old.
View the full case report.
Considerations for advertisers
The above decisions demonstrate that the Community Panel takes a range of factors into consideration when determining whether any breach of the advertising codes has occurred. In the case of Bec + Bridge's campaign, the lighting, posing, photography and makeup (which made the models look 'pale and gaunt') ultimately resulted in the portrayal of an unrealistic and unhealthy body image. Similarly, in the case of AJE, the Community Panel ultimately found that while the same model was used to advertise both products, the model's pose in certain images accentuated 'thinness' rather than showcasing the advertised product.
When it comes to breaches regarding the provisions on sex, sexuality and nudity, the Community Panel takes a nuanced approach and heavily considers context. In the case of Honey Birdette's posters, the panel accepted that sexual appeal was present although in some ways, necessary, given the nature of the advertised product. The panel's review then turned on the portrayal of women and determining whether there was any suggestion of exploitation or degradation. Similarly, in the case of Cotton On's ad, whilst the image involved partial nudity, the Community Panel also looked to the model's pose (which was not sexualised) and the overall portrayal of the product and nudity. The same analysis was adopted in the case of Wear Nala's post on Instagram – although in this case, the model's pose was found to be sexualised and contrary to Instagram's community standards.
Advertisers should be mindful of the various codes of ethics prescribed by the AANA and should endeavour to comply with these codes including where they engage influencers to create content on their behalf. Failure to do so can lead to complaints from the community and investigations by Ad Standards, and as seen in the decisions above, can result in campaigns and assets being discontinued. Decisions and investigations are publicly available on the Ad Standards website, and accordingly, reputational risk is an important factor to consider when green-lighting content.
* Prevailing Community Standards is defined in the AANA Code of Ethics to mean the community standards determined by the Ad Standards Community Panel as those prevailing at the relevant time in relation to Advertising or Marketing Communication.
If you have concerns about your advertising campaigns' compliance with Australian advertising standards or require guidance on navigating the AANA advertising codes, contact our expert team for advice that protects your brand reputation while enabling the use of effective marketing content.
