The ASA publishes detailed information about its workload and the most complained about ads each year in its annual report. Ahead of the release of our report in 2026, here is a sample of the TV ads that received the most complaints in 2025. The ads are listed in ascending order, based on the number of complaints the ASA considered.
Turners Group
Decision numbers: 25/066, 25/114, 25/120
Advertiser: Turners Group NZ Ltd
Outcomes: Upheld and No Further Action
Four complaints considered across three cases
12 further complaints received after the cases were closed
The ASA considered four complaints about different scenes in the Turners advertisement featuring Tina from Turners. Concerns from complainants included:
- It showed an illegal activity – a car doing a burnout
- The scene referring to cops looking out for a car, implying it’s stolen
- Concern about language in the ad including the use of the word “shit”
- The scene that says “you got so fat, the seats don’t fit” was offensive to obese people
- Objections to the scene with three guitar players who appeared to be naked.
The Complaints Board Chair ruled in two different decisions that no further action was required on the complaints about nudity and fat-shaming.
In a third decision, regarding the YouTube version of the TV ad, the Complaints Board upheld the complaint about a scene showing an illegal burnout, requiring this section of the ad to be removed. The Board did not uphold complaints about the language in the advertisement and the implication that cars were stolen.
As a version of the advertisement has continued to screen, a further 12 complaints relating to offensiveness have been received.
BNZ “Payap”
Decision numbers: 25/189 and 25/267
Advertiser: Bank of New Zealand
Outcome: No Further Action and Not Upheld
Four complaints considered across two cases
23 further complaints received after the cases were closed
The BNZ television advertisement shows a customer paying for items in a shop. To the customer’s surprise, the checkout operator scans some grapes, then eats one and bites on a muffin after scanning that. The operator then scans a bottle of milk, unscrews the top and says “Surcharges, what can you do?” He sips the milk and says, “oops too much.” The operator leans over the bottle as the advertisement cuts to the reaction of the customer’s face. The voiceover says, “Swerve the surcharge now, with Payap. The payments app for everyone, no matter which New Zealand bank you’re with.”
One complainant raised concerns the ad was misleading as it inferred the surcharge was imposed by small retailers. This complaint was Not Upheld by the Complaints Board who said there was nothing misleading portrayed in the ad, which used a light-hearted metaphor to simplify the complex system of surcharges involved in contactless and credit card payments.
The ASA considered three complaints objecting to the scene where the checkout operator eats some of the food as it goes through the checkout and appears to spit some milk back into a bottle as he has taken too much as a ‘surcharge.’
The Chair ruled this issue did not reach the threshold to breach the relevant Advertising Standards Authority Codes and the ASA would not take any further action.
As the advertisement has continued to screen, a further 23 complaints with similar issues about the behaviour of the checkout operator have been received.
Rexona “Whole Body Deodorant”
Decision numbers: 25/210 and 25/219
Advertiser: Unilever Australasia, Rexona
Outcome: No Further Action
Eight complaints considered
20 further complaints received after the case was closed
Rexona’s “Whole Body Deodorant” campaign tackled the taboo of full body sweat and odour, highlighting that only a small percentage of sweat comes from the underarms.
The Complaints Board Chair considered seven complaints objecting to this advertisement. These complaints said it was not appropriate for peak viewing time and some of the scenes were crude, sexual and in poor taste. A further complaint raised concerns the ad did not use proper terminology for body parts.
The Chair confirmed the advertisement had targeted adults and did not meet the threshold to breach the Advertising Standards Code. The Chair ruled no further action would be taken.
As the advertisement has continued to screen, a further 20 complaints with similar issues about the ad being in poor taste have been received.
Lotto “A Promise is a Promise”
Decision number: 25/085
Advertiser: Lotto NZ
Outcome: Not Upheld
48 complaints considered
70 further complaints received after the case was closed
The Lotto TV ad begins with a man at the top of a ski run. As the camera pans out, the viewer sees the man is skiing naked. The ad then moves to a group of friends discussing how they might celebrate if they win Lotto and joking about nude skiing. At the end of the ski run, the skier celebrates with the same people he had the bet with.
The ASA accepted 48 complaints about this advertisement. The Complainants said the portrayal of a man skiing naked, with images of his bare buttocks clearly visible, was indecent, offensive, and inappropriate for younger viewers.
The Complaints Board said the nudity in the advertisement was brief and not close-up or gratuitous, and it was relevant to the story in the advertisement. The Complaints Board said while the nudity in the advertisement was designed to “make you look” it was not sexualised or likely to cause harm to a general audience.
The Board said the television advertisement was played within its programme rating and was appropriately scheduled for a general adult audience. The complaints were not upheld, and an appeal by a complainant was declined by the Appeal Board Chair.
As the advertisement has continued to screen, a further 70 complaints with similar issues have been received.
KFC “Colonel Hacker”
Decision number: 25/247
Advertiser: Restaurant Brands, KFC
Outcome: Settled (ads removed)
65 complaints considered
The ASA received 65 complaints regarding KFC television, on demand, direct email and website banner ads. The campaign included footage of the “Colonel” explaining his appearance on screen: “Hello New Zealand, I am the Colonel Hacker. I’ve intercepted your ad break, but don’t panic, this isn’t a ggglitch, it’s a gift, and hacking the prices on the KFC menu, here’s a taste of what I’ve uploaded….”
One version of the advertisement (the “splash screen”) appeared when the TVNZ OnDemand App was opened. The Colonel Hacker figure appeared and said “Hello, this is just a taste of things to come.”
Complainants were concerned the advertisements:
- Gave the impression to some consumers that they had been hacked
- Were placed inappropriately in the OnDemand App
- Were scary for children, young people and older people
- Caused fear and were offensive for people who have been scammed
- Glorified / made humour of hacking
The Complaints Board Chair accepted the complaints to go before the Complaints Board to consider whether the Advertising Standards Code had been breached.
However, as part of the self-regulatory process, advertisers have the option of amending or removing their advertising after receiving a complaint. In this case the Advertiser confirmed they had removed the advertisements subject to ASA complaints.
Given the Advertiser’s co-operative engagement with the process by removing the advertisements, the Chair ruled the complaints were settled.
Editorial comment on complaints statistics and processing
It’s not uncommon for the ASA to continue receiving complaints about an ad after a case is closed. Complaints that raise similar issues but were received after a case is closed are called subsequent complaints. The complaints are acknowledged and complainants are sent a copy of the relevant decision for their information.
For the purposes of the 2025 Most Complained About Ads list, published in the annual report, we count the original complaints processed by the ASA and reviewed by the Complaints Board Chair and in some cases the Complaints Board.