June 2026 Ad Standards Decisions of Note…Savings Accounts, Secret Influencers and the E-Bike Spotlight

Last week, we published the first article in our new series looking at interesting decisions from Australia's advertising regulator, Ad Standards.

The June 2026 decisions offered several useful reminders for advertisers. Some reinforced well-established principles, while others highlighted that an advertisement can fail for reasons that were never raised by the complainant.

Here are three decisions that caught our attention.

Decision 1: You might beat the complaint... but still lose the case

It is fair to say that our first ad has a lot going on. In short (which may prove difficult), the ad featured several men in gym clothing, representing different financial products. A women in the ad is depicted as ‘ogling’ the men and at one point, one of the men depicting one financial product knocks out the man depicting the other financial product. A complaint was lodged alleging that the advertisement sexually degraded or exploited one of the male characters, contrary to section 2.2 of the AANA Code of Ethics.

The Community Panel disagreed. It found that the advertisement did not sexually exploit or degrade the man and therefore did not breach section 2.2 of the Code.

That, however, was not the end of the story.

One of the more interesting aspects of the Ad Standards process is that the Community Panel reviews an advertisement against the entire Code, not just the issue raised by the complainant.

In this case, although the original complaint failed, the Panel found the advertisement breached section 2.3 of the Code because the physical violence depicted was not justifiable in the context of the product/service being promoted.

The takeaway is an important one. Even where a complaint focuses on one issue, advertisers should remember that the Panel may identify entirely different concerns when assessing the advertisement against the Code as a whole.

Decision 2: Influencer marketing – who dobbed you in?

The second decision involved a social media post promoting a metal detector manufactured by Minelab ANZ (an organisation which, as we discovered after some quick Googling, has absolutely nothing to do with the ANZ Bank).

The complaint alleged that the content creator had been paid to promote the product without making that commercial relationship sufficiently clear.

As with many influencer complaints, it raises the obvious question: who dobbed them in?

Whether it was a follower, a competitor or someone else entirely, the case is another reminder that paid influencer arrangements are increasingly being scrutinised.

The Community Panel found that the advertisement breached section 2.7 of the Code, which requires advertising to be clearly distinguishable as advertising.

The lesson is straightforward. If you're being paid, receiving free products or otherwise have a commercial relationship with a brand, make sure that relationship is clearly disclosed. Paid partnerships shouldn't leave consumers guessing.

This influencer may need to be a little clearer the next time they're going for gold.

Decision 3: Do we have it in for e-bikes?

The last Born Legal call out is not necessarily one individual decision, but the revelation of an interesting trend.

E-bikes featured in six separate complaints during the month of June, all relating to health and safety concerns under section 2.6 of the Code.

Six complaints may not sound particularly significant at first glance. However, when there were only a little over twenty complaints considered by the Community Panel during June, it becomes clear that e-bikes are firmly in the public spotlight.

The complaints focused on a range of behaviours, including:

• riders not wearing helmets;

• piggyback riding on an e-bike;

• riding across pedestrian crossings;

• riding along footpaths; and

• riding in busy city environments.

And every complaint resulted in a breach of the Code.

For advertisers in this space, it serves as a timely reminder to consider not only legal road rules, but also the broader impression an advertisement creates about safe behaviour (and potentially whether e-bikes generally give the complaining public the irrits).

Final thoughts

One of the most valuable aspects of following Ad Standards decisions is that they often reveal issues advertisers may not have anticipated.

A complaint about sexual degradation can ultimately become a finding about unjustified violence. An influencer's casual social media post can become a reminder about disclosure obligations. A series of complaints can highlight changing community expectations or sentiment around emerging products like e-bikes.

For businesses, marketers and agencies, these decisions are a useful reminder that advertising compliance extends well beyond obvious legal issues. Keeping an eye on how the Community Panel interprets the Code can help identify potential risks before a campaign goes live.

We'll continue this series with future monthly round-ups highlighting the most interesting Ad Standards decisions and what they mean for Australian advertisers.