Uber Eats ad breaches Ad Standards for domestic violence

One of the spots from the ‘This Calls For’ Uber Eats campaign, created by Special Group, has been found to be in breach of Section 2.3 of the Australian Association of National Advertisers (AANA) Code of Ethics (the Code).

Section 2.3 states: “Advertising shall not present or portray violence unless it is justifiable in the context of the product or service advertised”.

The advertisement in question can be viewed below.

In the spot, a man is seen underneath a balcony with a woman throwing his belongings down to him. He then turns to the camera and commiserates how he’s going to need protein to beef up and get his girlfriend back. She tells him it’s not going to work so he orders frozen nuggets instead, and then tape when she throws his video game console off the balcony as well.

One of the complaints submitted to Ad Standards read: “This is a glorification of domestic violence. If the genders were reversed, it would have never been made.”

Another stated: “She is destroying all his belongings and almost hits him. If this advertisement was a man throwing a lady’s belongings out, more people would complain or be in an uproar about it.”

In Uber Eats’ initial response, the Advertiser argued that the advertisement was “light-hearted” and “tongue-in-cheek”.

The Advertiser further stated that: “The intention of the Advertisement is to highlight the utility of the Uber Eats platform as a solution to unusual or humorous predicaments, such as what to order for dinner when you have just gone through a breakup. This, together with the style, tone and script of the Advertisement, creates an element of absurdity and reinforces the overall impression that the Advertisement is intended to be interpreted in a light-hearted manner.”

Uber Eats commented that if there were found to be violence in the advertisement, it was justifiable in the context as it was relevant to the storyline and it was presented in an unrealistic manner.

The Ad Standards Community Panel (the Panel) considered that while the woman was not physically abusing the man, the destruction of personal property is classified as domestic abuse.

The Panel considered that: “The woman’s actions were menacing and in combination with the property damage this did amount to a depiction of domestic violence, despite the man’s laconic response.”

The Panel also noted, as it has in previous decisions, that the rise of domestic violence during the pandemic means there is a high level of community concern about the issue.

Further, the Panel found that the portrayal of violence was not justifiable in the context.

As stated above, the advertisement was found to be in breach of Section 2.3.

In response to the finding, Uber Eats has discontinued the advertisement.

An Uber spokesperson commented: “While our intention with this advertisement was to be lighthearted, we regret that it has caused offense to some people, and proactively chose to discontinue and remove it from circulation.

“Uber has a zero tolerance to violence policy, and actively works to combat gender based violence in the communities we operate in by working with expert partners to help drive societal change.”

Other advertisements that have found to be in breach of the same section include ones by Ladbrokes and Grill’d.

This article has been updated with comment from Uber.