The Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB) has dismissed a complaint against Canik firearm billboards positioned along Johannesburg’s Grayston Drive, ruling that the advertisements do not breach the Code of Advertising Practice’s provisions on children.
The complaint, lodged by a parent, argued that the prominent display of real firearms along a busy pedestrian route used by families and schoolchildren was irresponsible and potentially harmful to minors. The ARB, however, found that the advertisement was neither directed at children nor likely to cause them mental, moral, physical or emotional harm, as prohibited under Clause 14 of Section II of the Code.
The complaint
The complainant said she encounters the billboards daily while collecting her child from school and raised concerns about their proximity to child-dense areas. She argued that displaying firearms in a public, family-oriented space normalises weaponry for children and could encourage curiosity or desensitisation towards guns.
While acknowledging that firearm advertising is legal, she maintained that advertising weapons close to schools and areas frequented by children was irresponsible and contrary to the protection of minors, who she described as particularly impressionable.
Canik’s response
Canik countered that the Code does not prohibit lawful advertising of adult-restricted products simply because they are visible in public spaces. It argued that “visible to children” is not the same as “directed at children”.
The advertiser stressed that the billboards contained no elements that could reasonably be said to target or appeal to minors. These included no calls to action aimed at children, no encouragement of use or acquisition by minors, no violent or threatening imagery, no youth-oriented design elements, and no portrayal of firearms as toys, symbols of power or objects of fantasy
Canik also pointed out that if visibility alone were grounds for prohibition, advertising for alcohol, gambling or adult pharmaceuticals would effectively be barred from public spaces — something the Code does not support.
In addition, the company noted that Grayston Drive is a major commercial and transport corridor serving offices, retail spaces and commuter infrastructure, rather than a child-exclusive environment. The billboards, it said, were erected in compliance with municipal bylaws, media owner requirements and all applicable regulations. There are also no firearm-specific restrictions in South African law or the ARB Code that prohibit outdoor advertising of legal firearms.
Canik argued that the complaint focused on opposition to firearms as a category, rather than identifying any specific element of the advertisement that breached the Code. It described this as a political or moral objection rather than a regulatory one.
Said Canik in its response: “The ARB is not a forum for policy debates about lawful products. It exists to assess whether advertising content meets Code requirements.”
A look at the ARB's decision
In its ruling, the ARB acknowledged the sensitivity of firearms as a subject and expressed sympathy with the complainant’s desire to limit children’s exposure to contentious items. It noted that debates around desensitisation to weapons, including the sale of toy guns, are widely contested both locally and internationally.
However, the Directorate emphasised that the Code requires an objective assessment of whether an advertisement is addressed to or likely to influence children in a way that could cause harm. On the evidence before it, the ARB found that the Canik billboards promoted an adult-restricted product, were not directed at children, and contained no imagery or messaging that would appeal to or influence minors.
The Directorate also rejected the argument that placement alone was sufficient to establish a breach. It noted that many adult-only products and services are legally advertised in public spaces also used by children, provided the content itself does not target or exploit them.
While the billboards were visible from a route used by schoolchildren, the ARB found that the location is also one of the busiest commuter and commercial corridors in the country. As a result, it could not conclude that the advertisement was directed at children or that it posed a realistic risk of harm as contemplated by the Code.
Said the ARB: "The Advertiser rightfully notes, this is a political standpoint. While some parents might take the view that children should not be exposed to firearms, others believe that an appreciation and understanding of such items is normal and supports their sense of safety."
