Background
Summary of Council decision:
Four issues were investigated, of which one was Upheld and three were Not upheld.
Ad description
A TV ad, live streaming service ad and posters for the cinema release of the film Lee Cronin’s The Mummy, seen in April 2026:
a. The TV ad showed a family receiving a phone call, and a voice-over stated, “I’m deputy chief at the US Embassy. Your daughter Katie has been found. She’s alive”. Another voice-over stated, “She’s been missing for eight years”. The father stated, “What was our daughter doing in a 3000 year old sarcophagus”, whilst on-screen text stated, “SOME THINGS ARE MEANT TO STAY BURIED” and fleeting scenes included a body being removed from a sarcophagus, and a woman who looked distressed as a greying hand with long brittle nails brushed her cheek. The ad ended with the mother stating, “I just want my daughter back” and a close-up image of a woman with straggly hair and grimy skin flashed on screen. She was set against a black background and was looking up with an eerie smile.
A black banner appeared along the bottom of the screen throughout the ad which displayed the film title “THE MUMMY” and the text “IN CINEMAS APRIL 17”.
The ad was cleared by Clearcast with a post-7.30 pm scheduling restriction.
b. The live streaming service ad, seen on Prime Video, was the same as ad (a).
c. A poster, seen on the London Underground network, showed a close-up image of a female figure with a mummified appearance and one eye swollen shut. She was covered in brown material, including over her head which was inscribed with ancient-looking symbols.
The ad included text that stated, “SOME THINGS ARE MEANT TO STAY BURIED”, “LEE CRONIN’S THE MUMMY” and “IN CINEMAS APRIL 17”.
d. An outdoor poster included the same image and text as ad (b).
Issue
The ASA received 30 complaints, many of whom believed the ads were distressing for children and adults:
- one complainant, who believed ad (a) should not be broadcast during times when children were likely to be watching, challenged whether the scheduling restriction was sufficient;
- one complainant challenged whether ad (b) had been inappropriately targeted; and
- 28 complainants challenged whether the poster ads, ads (c) and (d), were suitable for display in an untargeted medium.
- Six complainants, who believed the poster ads, ads (c) and (d), were distressing, particularly to individuals who had lost a child and in the context of ongoing global conflicts, also challenged whether the ads were irresponsible and likely to cause serious and widespread offence.
Response
1. Warner Bros Entertainment UK Ltd (Warner Bros) stated that the TV ad (ad (a)) had been cleared by Clearcast with a post-7.30 pm scheduling restriction. They said the trailer had been prepared with due responsibility to consumers and society, was unlikely to cause harm or distress to under-18s, did not exploit the audience’s fears, and had been scheduled appropriately.
The trailer had been designed so that the horror themes were implied rather than shown explicitly. It contained no jump scares, no violence or gore, and no graphic imagery. The mummy character’s face appeared for less than a second and was presented in a relatively human way. Where characters reacted to events, they did not show significant distress or terror, and that any scenes touching on shock were brief. They said the trailer justifiably summarised the film’s story of parents being reunited with their lost daughter. However, they only implied the horror element through mild imagery and narrative references to the sarcophagus and film title.
Warner Bros referred to previous ASA rulings to support its position. They distinguished the trailer from an earlier upheld decision concerning a horror film ad and said that by contrast this trailer contained no explicit horror, blood or violence, and only mild distress. They also compared it to another TV ad decision in which the ASA had considered a post-7.30 pm restriction sufficient because the ad did not contain explicit or bloody violence or serious horror, and that the same rationale applied here.
The post-7.30 pm restriction was responsible, appropriate and reasonably sufficient to ensure that the TV ad was not marketed to younger children. They also considered that responsible decisions were made to ensure that any older children who may have seen the TV ad after 7.30 pm, even though it was not targeted at them, were not harmed or distressed.
Clearcast stated that they decided an ‘ex-kids’, post-7.30 pm restriction was appropriate. The restriction was based on the ad’s overall dark tone and mild suspense created by the imagery and music. There were very few notable shots, no gore and no explicit violence. They identified only two shots of note: a brief shot of a pale hand stroking a woman’s face, and a brief shot of a creepy girl staring at the camera. Those images were brief, mild and not graphic or overly disturbing, and that the face shown was neither warped nor bloody.
They also said they had reviewed other versions of ads for the same film and had given them later restrictions as they believed they contained more graphic imagery.
They provided indexing data about the level of reach the ad had with children. The average children’s index across all spots was 31, which they considered well below the level that would cause concern. They also said that, apart from a small number of slots during two European football games at around 7.40 pm, most of the ad placements were later in the evening, around 8.45 pm to 9 pm, when fewer children would be watching. Clearcast concluded that the post-7.30 pm restriction was appropriate and had effectively minimised children’s exposure to the ad.
2. Warner Bros reiterated their comments made in relation to point 1 about the design of the trailer. They also said the trailer was reviewed and approved through Amazon’s internal ad policy process prior to any display. They also applied additional audience targeting offered by Amazon Prime Video towards users identified as being “in-market” for horror content, based primarily on the past behaviours of shoppers/viewers on Amazon properties. They believed that the ad was shown at an appropriate time (around 9 pm) and was appropriately targeted to ensure it was unlikely to be seen by young children. They also said that Amazon offered dedicated child profiles and parental controls, including age restrictions, which users were encouraged to use.
Amazon said the ad was shown after 9 pm. They applied the same post-7.30 pm scheduling restriction that Clearcast had approved for the TV ad (ad (a)).
3. Warner Bros stated the poster ads had been prepared with due responsibility to consumers and society. They said the posters were not designed to create fear or distress, were not likely to cause serious or widespread offence, and were suitable for display in untargeted media.
The character depicted in the poster ads was that of a living mummy who was returned to her parents as a teen/young adult, many years after having been kidnapped as a child. The posters used a face with a neutral expression, not indicating any distress. The character was not restrained, nor obviously bound/mummified, and there was no sarcophagus imagery, and avoided elements of violence, threat or intimidation. They said those design decisions were intended to reduce any risk of distress, including distress associated with the film title and the idea of mummification. The posters were static mediums, so any depiction of the character’s expression would be fixed. They believed the open blue eye connoted life, rather than lack of it, and the other eye was only partially closed with the pupil still visible.
They said that the film did not have a confirmed rating at the outset of the advertising campaign but was later classified 18. They did not consider it inherently inappropriate to advertise a film with adult or scary themes in untargeted media, because the poster itself was not threatening, violent or distressing. They said the image conveyed only the concept of a mummy and included no emotion, horror or threat. They deliberately constructed the ads to avoid features which could have had that effect.
They added that the posters had been submitted to TfL’s advertising partner, Global, and had been accepted for display on the London Underground network. Warner Bros also said that its outdoor buying instruction for all horror titles was that ads should not be placed within 100 metres of a school. The schools list that media owners worked from did not include nurseries and therefore it was not standard industry practice, nor did their advertising partners provide a service, that ensured ads could not be placed within 100 metres of nurseries.
They also referred to previous ASA rulings on horror film posters, which were not found to breach the Code. In some of those decisions, the ads included characters with ghoulish or sinister appearances which Warner Bros considered were more graphic or immediately evocative of distressing themes than the current ads. They said their design choices demonstrated social responsibility and compliance with the CAP Code.
Global (the media space owner of ad (b)) said that they submitted the ads to the CAP Copy Advice team and were provided with positive advice.
Bauer Media Outdoor UK (a media space owner of ad (c)) confirmed that they ran one digital billboard campaign for the film. They believed that the advertiser was responsible for compliance with the CAP Code, and it was not for them to decide whether a campaign was suitable for publication. In planning and delivering the campaign, they applied a discretionary 100-metre exclusion around all schools, using the industry standard SPACE schools dataset. That dataset included primary, secondary, special-needs and further-education establishments.
Ocean Outdoor (a media space owner of ad (c)) said they had not received any complaints.
4. Warner Bros said the posters were simply an isolated image of a face, with no identifying factors suggesting a child or the loss of one. They believed that when the ads were viewed on their own by consumers, properly interpreted, they did not suggest anything relating to the loss of a child, or lack sensitivity in respect of such issues.
On the suggestion that the image might be reminiscent of ongoing global conflicts, they recognised that there were ongoing conflicts in the Middle East and mummification was a practice connected to ancient Egypt, and the character’s headband had hieroglyphics, but there was no further connection. Nothing in the poster was intended to refer to any current conflict.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ASA considered that ad (a) contained scenes of mild horror, including clips of a greying hand with long brittle nails brushing a woman’s cheek, and a close-up image of a woman with straggly hair, grimy skin and an eerie smile. We considered that some children might have found those scenes unsettling. However, those scenes were shown only fleetingly. The ad did not contain scenes of serious horror, and the rest of the content was mild. We considered that it was unlikely to cause fear or distress to older children, but that it was likely to cause fear and be distressing to young children.
The ad was subject to scheduling restrictions that prevented it from being shown in or adjacent to programmes commissioned for, principally directed at or likely to appeal to children under 16, or before 7.30 pm. We noted the complainant’s concern that the ad was seen at a time in which children were likely to be watching TV. However, we had not seen evidence that it had been broadcast contrary to those restrictions. We considered those restrictions were 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.
2. Not upheld
As referenced at point 1, we considered ad (b), which was the same as ad (a), contained scenes of mild horror, which some children may have found unsettling and were 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 complainants’ concern that the ad was seen at a time in which children were likely to be watching the live streaming service. However, we had not seen any evidence that the ad had been published against that restriction. We also understood that the ad was subject to additional targeting restrictions that directed the ad towards adult audiences, which we noted were primarily based on the account’s past behaviours on Amazon properties. However, we considered that streaming services were commonly shared between adults and younger users within a household, and therefore targeting based on that alone would not necessarily prevent children from seeing an ad. Nonetheless, because the ad had a post-7.30 pm restriction, which, as referenced at point 1, we considered was sufficient to ensure that the ad was unlikely to be seen by young children. We therefore considered the targeting restrictions applied in relation to ad (b) were sufficient and concluded that the ad had not been inappropriately targeted.
On this point, we investigated ad (b) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 1.3 (Social responsibility) and 4.2 (Harm and offence), but did not find it in breach.
3. Upheld
Ads (c) and (d) showed a close-up image of a female figure. We considered that the grey and ashen appearance of the skin, the dry and cracked lips and mouth, one eye swollen shut and the other fixed and vacant, together with the sunken and lifeless appearance of the face, gave a realistic impression of a dead child. We also considered that the material wrapped around the figure gave the appearance of a shroud, which further added to that impression. Because the figure had recognisable human features, we considered that viewers were likely to understand it as a realistic depiction of a dead child.
Ad (c) appeared on the London Underground network. Ad (d) appeared on various billboard sites. We considered those were untargeted medium, where they had the potential to be seen by a large number of people, including children. We acknowledged that Warner Bros said that the ads were not placed within 100 metres of any schools. However, we understood that the ad was visible from a children’s nursery.
In any case, we considered the image was likely to distress young children, and that it was unsuitable for display where it was likely to be seen by them. We therefore concluded that the ads were unsuitable for outdoor display and therefore breached the Code.
On this point, ads (c) and (d) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 1.3 (Social responsibility) and 4.2 (Harm and offence).
4. Not upheld
As referenced at point 3, we considered that the image in ads (c) and (d) resembled a dead child. We acknowledged the sensitivities surrounding child loss, and the wider context of ongoing global conflicts. However, we considered that the text “LEE CRONIN’S THE MUMMY” and “IN CINEMAS APRIL 17” made clear that they were ads for a film and the image would be understood in that context. We therefore considered that whilst the image was shocking and some would find it distasteful, the ads did not trivialise the vulnerabilities of those audiences. We therefore concluded that ads (c) and (d) were not irresponsible, and would not cause serious or widespread offence.
On this point, we investigated ads (c) and (d) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 1.3 (Social responsibility), 4.1 and 4.2 (Harm and offence), but did not find them in breach.
Action
Ads (c) and (d) must not appear in the form complained of. We told Warner Bros Entertainment UK Ltd to ensure that future marketing that was likely to cause fear or distress to young children did not appear where they were likely to see it. No further action necessary in respect of ads (a) and (b).
