Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
Two paid-for X (formally Twitter) ads for HoneyToons, a webcomic platform:
a. The first ad, seen on 22 March 2025, featured the caption “[joker emoji] A harmless joke…or a path to unexpected consequences? When a simple prank spirals out of control, tension rises, and desires awaken. [Smirking emoji] What happens when boundaries are pushed too far? Find out in Prank Goes Wrong — where mischief turns into something much more intense… [fire emoji] [ devil emoji]”.
An anime/manga-style image underneath, presented in a comic book layout, depicted a young woman and a man wrestling. She had him in a headlock, with her legs wrapped around his waist. A speech bubble read “BRO, I’M DONE WITH YOUR PRANKS!”. The following panel showed the same woman with an angry expression, accompanied by text that read “OMG!”, and “YO, IS THAT A THIRD LEG?”. A final image, in which she looked surprised, featured the text “OMG! BUT I’M YOUR SISTER!”. Underneath the image, text stated, “Hot comics, follow now! [fire emoji]”, with a hyperlink to honeytoon.com.
b. The second ad, seen on 29 March 2025, featured the caption “[fire emoji] A honeymoon like no other…a desire too forbidden to resist. When boundaries shatter and temptation takes over, will he give in or walk away? [wink emoji] Honeymoon with My Mother-in-Law- a story where passion blurs the lines of family and seduction. Tap in if you can handle it…[wine emoji] [fire emoji]”.
An image underneath, presented in the same style and comic book layout as ad (a), featured a man approaching a sleeping woman. A speech bubble read "IS SHE ASLEEP?" followed by another stating "I’M SORRY BUT I CAN’T RESTRAIN MYSELF ANY LONGER!". The scene portrayed in the next image was of the man smiling and standing behind the woman while she appeared shocked. The final panel showed the woman turning around with the text "OMG!" and "BUT I’M YOUR MOTHER-IN-LAW!". Beneath the image, the text read "Hot comics, follow now! [fire emoji]”, with a hyperlink to honeytoon.com.
Issue
- One complainant, who believed ad (a) sexually objectified women, including by referencing incest, challenged whether the ad was irresponsible, offensive and harmful.
- A second complainant, who believed ad (b) trivialised and condoned sexual assault and sexually objectified women, challenged whether the ad was irresponsible, offensive and harmful.
Response
1. & 2. Honeytech Ltd t/a HoneyToon did not respond to the ASA's enquiries
Assessment
1. & 2. Upheld
The ASA was concerned by Honeytech Ltd t/a HoneyToon’s lack of response and apparent disregard for the Code, which was a breach of CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.7 (Unreasonable delay). We reminded them of their responsibility to respond promptly to our enquiries and told them to do so in future.
The text in the caption, speech bubbles, and imagery in ad (a) portrayed a man becoming sexually aroused as a woman wrestled with him. The scene depicted the woman being placed in a sexual situation without consent, before revealing that they were brother and sister. In ad (b), the text in the caption, speech bubbles, and imagery depicted a man sexually assaulting his mother-in-law. Both ads featured sexually explicit content, which we considered was likely to cause serious and widespread offence in the context of an untargeted paid ad on X.
Furthermore, the sexual situations depicted were non-consensual, with ad (b) unambiguously depicting sexual violence against a woman. Additionally, the portrayal of the women as a sister and mother-in-law to the men played on pornographic tropes relating to the taboos of incest and sexual relationships with other family members. We considered those aspects of the ads’ content were also likely to cause serious and widespread offence. We additionally considered both ads objectified and stereotyped women by presenting them as objects of sexual gratification and therefore included a gender stereotype that was likely to cause harm. For those reasons we considered the ads were not suitable to be featured in any medium.
While we acknowledged the ads were for a webcomic platform featuring adult themes and sexually suggestive and explicit content, we considered the advertiser must ensure that their ads did not feature content which was likely to cause offence or harm.
Overall, we concluded that ads (a) and (b) breached the Code, because: they were likely to cause both serious and widespread offence; included gender stereotypes in a manner likely to cause harm: and had been irresponsibly targeted.
On points 1 and 2, ads (a) and (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 1.3 (Social responsibility), and 4.1 and 4.9 (Harm and offence).
Action
The ads must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Honeytech t/a HoneyToon to ensure future ads were prepared responsibly, did not contain harmful gender stereotypes, and did not cause serious or widespread offence, including through references to incest, scenes that depicted women as objects of sexual gratification or that trivialised or condoned sexual assault or sexual violence. We referred the matter to CAP’s Compliance team.
