Ad description
An in-game ad for the mobile app Last Light: Rebirth, a mobile strategy game, seen in the mobile app game Sudoku.com on 30 July 2026, featured a video of an animated female character, asleep in a chair. She had large breasts and was wearing a tight blouse which showed her cleavage, a mini-skirt, sheer tights and stiletto shoes. On-screen text at the top of the screen stated “It’s harder than you think!”. While the character slept, a hand appeared on-screen with the option to choose a gloved hand or a feather. The gloved hand was selected, and a puzzle appeared which the hand then solved. The gloved hand then pulled down the character’s tights, removing them to reveal her bare legs. A fly then appeared and landed on the characters thigh, and options of a fly spray and a fly swatter appeared on screen. The hand chose the fly swatter, and a new puzzle appeared which the hand then solved. The character was then hit on the thigh with the fly swatter which woke her up and left a chequered mark on her leg. She then got up and walked towards the camera, which was angled upwards from below, and as she raised her leg to kick the screen, which caused it to shatter, her underwear was visible. She then stood with her arms crossed and had an angry expression.
Issue
The complainant, who believed the ad objectified women and trivialised and condoned violence, challenged whether the ad was harmful, offensive and irresponsible.
Response
Bingchuan Network (Hong Kong) Co Ltd t/a Last Light: Rebirth, said they had arrangements with third-party advertising companies who were responsible for the creative production and marketing of ads for their games. They explained that they provided the third-party company with the relevant product and character artwork and gave them permission to create versions of ads and promote them through various accounts. Last Light: Rebirth said that during the promotional process they had received complaints from users and after an investigation, they instructed the third party to withdraw the ad, because it did not reflect their values. They understood the concerns related to the objectification of the female character, the negative impression created by the ad, and the failure to reflect the correct level of social responsibility.
They had terminated their arrangement with the third party to prevent further inappropriate ads for their products being promoted and would establish stricter oversight procedures in future and ensure those were incorporated in future third-party arrangements.
Easybrain, the creator of the Sudoku game in which the ad had appeared, said the ad did not meet the standards they applied to advertising in their apps. They blocked categories they considered unsuitable, including adult, sexual or violent content, across all their network partners. They also identified and blocked specific advertisers or campaigns when concerns were raised, including reports made by users. They said the advertised app was categorised as “game” or “strategy” and therefore did not fall within their blocked categories. They were aware that at times, advertisers would not match their ads to the correct category set by the ad network and as a result, ads that included restricted content would not be filtered out or blocked by the ad network.
They said they had previously received a user complaint in June 2026 about a similar ad shown in a different Easybrain app. In that case, they identified the ad network that served the ad and blocked it. They said they had not received any other complaints in the UK about the current ad or about the advertiser. They added that blocking one ad did not necessarily prevent a similar ad appearing again if the advertiser launched a new campaign.
Easybrain said the current ad was placed by a third-party network but they were unable to identify which network had served the ad.
Assessment
Upheld
The CAP Code stated that ads must be prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society and must not cause serious or widespread offence. It also stated that ads must contain nothing that is likely to condone or encourage violence and must not include gender stereotypes in a way that is likely to cause harm.
The ASA considered that the female character’s clothing and pose presented her in a sexualised manner. She wore a tight, low-cut top that emphasised her large breasts with her arms positioned in a way that accentuated them further. She also wore a mini-skirt and stiletto shoes and was seated with her legs crossed. We considered that her pose, together with the low camera angle, drew particular attention to her legs and chest. While we considered her presentation was only mildly sexually suggestive, we considered that the combination of her clothing, pose, and the low camera angle nevertheless objectified her by placing unnecessary emphasis on her body, particularly in the context of an ad for a mobile strategy game. Later in the ad, the character stood up and kicked towards the camera, during which her underwear was visible. We considered that this further contributed to her sexualised and objectified presentation.
While the character slept, a hand removed her tights, exposing her bare legs. We considered that the character was unaware of and unable to consent to the removal of her clothing. In the context of her sexualised presentation, we considered that this further reinforced the harmful impression that it was acceptable to objectify women by presenting them as passive sexual objects whose bodies could be manipulated without their consent, and thereby reinforced a harmful gender stereotype. We also considered that incorporating the non-consensual removal of her clothing into the gameplay made light of such behaviour and trivialised it in a way that was irresponsible.
In another scene, the character was struck on the thigh with a fly swatter while she was still asleep, which woke her and left a visible mark on her leg. When presented with options, the fly swatter was selected over the fly spray. We considered that choice introduced an avoidable element of physical harm, because the alternative did not require hitting the character. We further considered that presenting physical aggression towards a sleeping character as part of the gameplay made light of and trivialised such behaviour and, in doing so, condoned violence.
For those reasons, we concluded the ad was irresponsible, condoned violence and included harmful gender stereotypes likely to cause serious offence.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 1.3 (Social responsibility), 4.1, 4.4 and 4.9 (Harm and offence).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Bingchuan Network (Hong Kong) Co Ltd t/a Last Light: Rebirth to ensure that their ads were socially responsible and did not condone or trivialise violence or include harmful gender stereotypes, by objectifying and sexualising women, which were likely to cause harm or serious and widespread offence.
