Background
Summary of Council decision:
Four issues were investigated, all of which were Not upheld.
Ad description
A TV ad and two posters for the cinema release of the film They Will Kill You, seen in March and April 2026:
a. The TV ad began with a voice-over which stated, “This building is a temple to Satan. Each month we must pay with a human sacrifice.” A dark exterior shot of a building was shown, before the ad cut to the film’s main character, a young woman, inside the building, stepping into a corridor. In the following scene, a man was shown speaking to her and said, “Tonight, you are the offering.”
This was followed by a series of fast-cut scenes which showed the woman fighting groups of people using martial arts and a machete. The other characters were shown carrying a range of weapons. The ad ended with a voice-over which stated, “They Will Kill You. In cinemas March 27” and that text also appeared on screen. A black banner appeared along the bottom of the screen throughout the ad, displaying the film title “They Will Kill You” on the left and the text “In cinemas March 27” on the right.
The ad was cleared by Clearcast with a post 7.30 pm scheduling restriction.
b. The first poster, seen on the London Underground network, featured a central image of a woman standing in front of a gold doorway against a red background with blood splattered across it. She appeared to be holding a blood-stained knife over one shoulder and had visible blood and marks on her face, arms and clothes. Large text across the ad stated, “THEY WILL KILL YOU” followed by “IN CINEMAS MARCH 27”.
c. The second poster, also seen on the London Underground network, featured the same image and text as ad (b), cropped to show from her waist upwards, and in a wide billboard format.
Issue
The ASA received 20 complaints, some of whom reported that their children had been distressed by the ads:
1. some complainants challenged whether the ads were irresponsible, offensive and likely to distress viewers of all ages, because they believed the bloodied imagery, bladed weapon and the text glamorised violence and knife crime;
2. 17 complainants challenged whether ads (b) and (c) were suitable for display in an untargeted medium;
3. two complainants who believed ad (a) should not be shown before 9 pm, challenged whether the scheduling restriction was sufficient; and
4. one complainant challenged whether ad (a) was appropriate to be shown during a UEFA Champions League football match, because children were likely to be watching.
Response
1. Warner Bros. Entertainment UK Ltd (Warner Bros) stated that the poster ads had been prepared with due responsibility to consumers and society, were not designed in a way to create fear or offence, did not contain anything which was likely to condone violence, and did not glamorise or normalise violence or knife crime. The character’s expression appeared determined rather than aggressive, with nothing in her posture that suggested violent intent. Only part of the knife was visible, with the blade positioned behind the character so that the sharp edge could not be seen, and the blood had been darkened to reduce realism. Additionally, there were no calls to action in the posters.
They added that the posters were not evocative of knife crime in urban Britain and did not condone or encourage such behaviour. They did not feature any of the elements criticised in previous ASA rulings, such as the weapon being brandished or accompanied by messaging encouraging violence. The posters did not condone or encourage violence or anti-social behaviour and remained within the boundaries of imagery commonly seen in public advertising for action or horror films and video games involving conflict or violence.
Warner Bros also said they had designed the TV ad with due responsibility to consumers and society, and that it was not likely to distress audiences or to glamorise or normalise violence or knife crime. They had made creative choices to limit the use and display of weaponry.
They said a knife appeared only briefly, for around five seconds in total and around three seconds in use, and that no weapon was shown hitting, cutting or making contact with any character. None of the action sequences showed bloodshed or gore, and that the only blood shown appeared briefly in one dark sequence in muted tones. They said the title and references to human sacrifice were necessary to explain the plot, that the setting was clearly fictional and not evocative of Britain, and that the character was shown using weapons defensively in a stylised, fictional context. They added that the tone was more aligned with a horror-comedy than with something more sinister.
Warner Bros referred to previous ASA rulings, noting that ads which depicted explicit violence, injury or weapon contact were more likely to be problematic. They said the trailer avoided those elements, as no injury or weapon contact was shown and any blood appeared only briefly in muted, dark tones. They added that, consistent with past decisions, the ad contained mild, non-graphic action and was unlikely to cause fear or distress to older children.
Responding in relation to ad (a), Clearcast said the TV ad contained minimal depictions of violence or injury and minimal blood. There was a single instance of a connecting kick, but most of the action was implied and consisted largely of weapon movements without contact being shown, so any suggestion of harm was limited and non-graphic. While the film’s premise involved Satanic worshippers and human sacrifice, which were inherently adult themes, they were referenced only in dialogue and were not shown graphically on screen. The ad was not presented in a manner that was dark, menacing, or likely to cause distress. The ad was action-led rather than frightening and did not include jump scares or sustained suspense. The central character, although pursued, was portrayed as resilient, capable, and not a vulnerable or passive victim. They also said that one of the most prominent weapons shown was a sword in a clearly fantastical and stylised context, with no graphic outcomes shown. The weapon formed part of an exaggerated, fictional narrative involving cult activity, rather than a realistic setting. They did not believe that the trailer was likely to be interpreted as promoting or normalising real-world violence or knife crime and did not reflect the type of everyday scenarios associated with knife crime.
Global (the media space owner of ads (b) and (c)) said that they submitted the ads to the CAP Copy Advice team and were provided with positive advice.
2. Warner Bros said they did not consider it inappropriate to advertise a film with violent themes in an untargeted medium because the posters (ads (b) and (c)) were not inherently threatening, violent or distressing and had been designed responsibly. They said they were therefore appropriate for use in outdoor advertising locations and noted that the posters had been submitted to TfL’s advertising partner, Global, for approval. Warner Bros added that TfL’s clearance requirements included compliance with the CAP Code and avoidance of fear or distress, and that the posters had been approved for display on the London Underground network.
3. Warner Bros stated that the TV ad (ad (a)) had been cleared by Clearcast with a post-7.30 pm scheduling restriction. They believed this was responsible, appropriate and reasonably sufficient to ensure that the ad was displayed to those aged 15 and over, who the film was directed at. They said care had been taken to ensure that the ad was not marketed to younger children. They referred to a previous ASA ruling concerning a horror/action film trailer, in which the ASA had concluded that a post-7.30 pm restriction was sufficient because the ad did not contain explicit or bloody violence or serious horror, and said the same rationale applied here.
Clearcast stated that they decided a post-7.30 pm restriction was appropriate. They said that, in the context of the limited visual detail, absence of graphic imagery and action-led presentation, the material was appropriately constrained for that scheduling and was unlikely to exceed the level of content generally anticipated by audiences after 7.30 pm. They also said that older children who saw it were likely to recognise its fictional and unrealistic nature.
4. TNT Sports, the broadcaster, said the ad (ad (a)) had been processed and rated by Clearcast with a post-7.30 pm restriction and that, in their view, it had complied with that restriction. They provided indexing data about the level of reach the TV campaign had with children. They considered child audience indexing when making scheduling decisions and noted that the index during the particular broadcast of the ad during the Champions League game was low and well below 100. They said the relevant indices were 43 in the 20.00 to 20.59 hour and 47 in the 21.00 to 21.59 hour, and that TNT Sports channels had generally shown low child audience indices in recent months. They therefore considered that the ad had been appropriately scheduled in that programme.
Warner Brothers said they believed the scheduling was appropriate and that appropriate care had been taken to ensure the trailer was not marketed to younger children.
Clearcast stated that the TV ad aired during midweek UEFA Champions League fixtures, during school term time, just before 9.00 pm. They said audience indexing data showed that those matches did not attract a disproportionately high proportion of children and skewed towards an adult audience. This context reduced the likelihood of younger children being exposed in significant numbers and supported their view that the scheduling, alongside the content and tone, was appropriate.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ASA first assessed the poster ads, ads (b) and (c), which showed a woman with blood on her face, hands and clothing, holding a blood-stained knife in front of a blood-splattered red background and an art deco style lift topped with a row of small gold pictograms. We acknowledged that some viewers might have found the imagery, and the combination of the knife and text “THEY WILL KILL YOU”, distressing.
However, we considered that the overall presentation was highly stylised and evocative of an action horror. The blood appeared darkened and stylised, presented as a splatter effect which blended into the red background, and contributed to the theatrical effect of the image. We also considered that the background of the art deco lift was not a setting that viewers would likely associate with real-world knife crime. Because viewers were likely to understand the image as stylised film artwork that reflected the film’s content, we considered that the text “THEY WILL KILL YOU” was likely to be understood as part of the film’s title rather than as wording that glamorised violence or knife crime.
We also considered the use of the weapon featured. The woman was posed with the knife over her shoulders, and she was not shown threatening or attacking anyone. Because the full weapon was not visible and was not pointed towards viewers, we considered it was not depicted in a way that glamorised knife crime or violence.
For those reasons, we did not consider that the imagery, weapon or text glamorised violence or knife crime. We therefore concluded that the poster ads were not irresponsible, offensive or likely to cause distress to viewers of any age.
We next considered the TV ad (ad (a)). Similarly to ads (b) and (c), the scenes involving the bladed weapon appeared stylised and weapon-use was limited. We noted that, while characters were shown fighting, the featured weapons were not shown striking, entering or piercing bodies. Furthermore, we considered that much of the action was implied rather than shown and the ad was not graphic; any blood appeared only very briefly and in muted tones. References to Satanic worship and human sacrifice appeared in dialogue during the first half of the ad, which we further considered were likely to be understood within the fictional context of the ad, and unlikely to be interpreted as realistic or relatable. We considered that viewers were unlikely to understand the TV ad as presenting violence or weapon use as reflecting real-life knife crime.
For those reasons, we did not consider that the imagery, weapon or text glamorised violence or knife crime. We therefore considered that the TV ad was not irresponsible, offensive or likely to cause distress to viewers of any age.
For those reasons, we concluded that ads (a), (b) and (c) did not breach the Code.
On this point, we investigated ad (a) under BCAP Code 1.2 (Social Responsibility) and 4.1 (Harm and offence), and ads (b) and (c) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 1.3 (Social Responsibility), 4.1, 4.2 and 4.4 (Harm and offence), but did not find them in breach.
2. Not upheld
Ads (b) and (c) appeared on the London Underground network, an untargeted medium, where they were likely to be seen by a broad audience, including children.
As referenced in point 1, ads (b) and (c) were highly stylised, with the woman seen holding a partially obscured knife behind her back, alongside the text “They Will Kill You”. We acknowledged that some children might have found the ad unsettling. However, we considered that the ad was not gory or graphic, nor did it contain any violent imagery, or depict individuals in distress. We considered the image to be relatively mild and unlikely to cause distress to children. We therefore considered that the poster ads were suitable for display in an untargeted medium, even where they were likely to be seen by young children. We concluded that ads (b) and (c) did not breach the Code.
On this point, we investigated ads (b) and (c) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 1.3 (Social Responsibility), 4.2 and 4.4 (Harm and Offence), but did not find them in breach.
3. Not upheld
As referenced in point 1, we considered that the use of the weapon depicted in the ad was brief and stylised, and that no bloodshed or gore was shown.
We also considered the references to human sacrifice within the ad. We acknowledged that the opening statement “This building is a temple to Satan. Each month we must pay with a human sacrifice”, accompanied by imagery of a dark corridor, created an ominous tone and that some viewers, including children, might have found unsettling. However, those references only appeared during the first half of the ad, and we considered that the remainder of the ad was more akin to a sequence typically associated with an action film. The ad did not contain scenes of explicit or bloody violence, or serious horror. We therefore considered that the ad was unlikely to cause fear or distress to older children given the brief and stylised use of the weapon, the absence of bloodshed or gore, and the limited references to human sacrifice within an otherwise action-led sequence, but that it was likely to cause fear and be distressing to young children.
The ad was subject to a post-7.30 pm scheduling restriction, which prevented it from being shown before 7.30 pm. We noted the concerns of the complainants that the ad was seen at a time in which children were likely to be watching TV. However, we had not seen any evidence that the ad had been broadcast against that restriction. We considered that restriction was sufficient to ensure that the ad was unlikely to be seen by young children. We therefore concluded that the ad had been appropriately scheduled and did not breach the Code.
On this point, we investigated ad (a) under BCAP Code rules 1.2 (Social responsibility), 4.1 and 4.10 (Harm and offence), 5.1 (Children) and 32.3 (Scheduling), but did not find it in breach.
4. Not upheld
The BCAP Code placed a general responsibility on broadcasters to ensure that they exercised responsible judgement on the scheduling of ads and that they operated internal systems capable of identifying and avoiding unsuitable juxtapositions between advertising material and programmes, especially those that could distress or offend viewers. The Code also stated that ads which were suitable for older children but could distress younger children must be sensitively scheduled.
The complainant challenged whether the ad’s scheduling during a UEFA Champions League match was appropriate. We understood the ad had appeared before 9.00 pm, during half-time. We reviewed the BARB index data for the 20:00–20:59 and the 21:00–21:59 timeslots provided to us by the broadcaster. We noted that the index scores were significantly below the index threshold of 120, meaning children were under-represented in the audience during the relevant period, and the programme was not of disproportionately greater appeal to under 16s than it was to the viewing population as a whole. We therefore considered that the ad was unlikely to have been seen by a significant number of young children and concluded that it had not been inappropriately placed during a UEFA Champions League football match.
On this point, we investigated ad (a) under BCAP Code rules 1.2 (Social Responsibility), 4.1 (Harm and offence), 5.1 (Children) and 32.1 (Scheduling), but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
