Ad Standards Holds Brands Responsible for Unsafe Scenes in Creator Partnership Posts

On 23 September 2026, Ad Standards’ Community Panel found a Flight Risk sponsored Instagram ad in breach of the AANA Code of Ethics because the riders’ helmet straps hung loose. It was the latest of 15 breach decisions against the Australian e-bike seller in 2026, and at least four of those concern posts made with creators.

If a creator’s post carries a brand’s paid partnership or collaboration label, Ad Standards treats it as the brand’s own ad, even when the brand says it did not make or post it. Every scene counts, so a rider without a helmet or with loose straps can put the brand in breach. In practice, brands need to check what creators film before a labelled post goes live.

Key Takeaways

• Under the Practice Note to the health and safety section, unsafe riding or driving can breach the Code even when it is incidental to the product.
• In the March 2026 ruling, Flight Risk said it had not made or posted a collaboration post, and the Panel still found it appeared to control that post.
• The same ruling found that filming on private property did not change the outcome.
• In the April 2025 ruling, five posts on Flight Risk’s own Instagram account, which Flight Risk said content creators had provided, were all found contrary to section 2.6.
• In the three 2026 rulings described below, the ads stayed visible after the decision.

What Ad Standards Decided

In the rulings described below, Ad Standards’ Community Panel found Flight Risk ads in breach of section 2.6 of the AANA Code of Ethics: “Advertising shall not depict material contrary to Prevailing Community Standards on health and safety.”

Ad Standards, which handles complaints under the AANA advertising codes, said health and safety was the issue of greatest concern in the first half of 2026: 72 of the 168 ads referred to the Community Panel were assessed under it.

The September 2026 ruling turned on the straps alone. The riders wore helmets, and the Panel said community expectations are that riders use helmets “that are correctly fastened while riding on public roads for their own safety”.

The August 2026 ruling concerned a Facebook post labelled “Paid partnership” between a creator and Flight Risk. It shows the rider without a helmet on a Flight Risk e-bike, on what appeared to be a public road.

Health and safety was the only issue the Panel assessed, and it found the post in breach because the rider “was not using a helmet in any of the scenes depicted”.

The March 2026 ruling covered four Flight Risk Instagram posts and found three in breach, a collaboration post with a professional athlete’s account among them. The Panel described a rider who “appears to be riding his e-bike while not wearing a helmet”, in scenes that “appeared to show him filming while riding”.

Why the Brand Answers for the Creator’s Post

Because the March 2026 collaboration post carried a collaboration label linking the athlete’s account and Flight Risk’s account, the Panel said Flight Risk “appears to have a reasonable sense of control over the post”.

Flight Risk had argued that this post “was not created or posted by it, so it cannot remove this post.”

Whether the label itself was applied correctly is a separate disclosure question, covered in our guide to new social media laws in Australia.

Ad Standards’ page on what counts as advertising says the codes cover “social media ads or sponsored content”. Even with no payment involved, it treats content as an ad when “it is something the advertiser has a reasonable degree of control over”.

What the Rulings Change for Creator Campaigns

The Practice Note to section 2.6, quoted in each case report, says images of unsafe driving, riding without a helmet or not wearing a seatbelt are likely to breach the Code “irrespective of whether such depictions are for the product/service being advertised or are incidental to the product”.

The March 2026 ruling shows where the line sits. The one post not in breach showed people “sitting on a stationary bike” in “a private driveway”, with the bike “being moved into position, rather than being driven in the conventional sense.”

Flight Risk also said some scenes in that ruling were shot on private property. The Panel said the question was “whether the ad depicted unsafe behaviour” and “this technical distinction would not alter the Panel’s consideration”.

The April 2025 ruling covered five posts on Flight Risk’s own Instagram account, which Flight Risk said “were provided by UGC content creators.” The Panel found all five contrary to section 2.6, and Flight Risk said four were “being removed today” and that it was changing one caption.

None of the rulings described here involves a venue, a drinks brand or a tour operator. Ad Standards’ health and safety page, though, lists other ads found in breach of section 2.6, including “Promoting or depicting unsafe or excessive drinking behaviours” and “The depiction of unsafe actions around water”.

On that basis, in our view the same test reaches any brand whose creators ride, drive, swim or drink on camera, from a winery to a resort.

The same page lists as not in breach “Depicting people drinking, in moderation, in the vicinity of a pool or body of water or undertaking light physical activity.”

What a Breach Costs a Brand

A brand found in breach is expected to modify or remove the ad. Ad Standards usually publishes the case report within 10 days of the decision, and “all advertiser responses are published in the case report”.

If the advertiser does not comply, Ad Standards “may pursue other enforcement options such as contacting the media owner or platform to request the ad’s removal”. If appropriate, it will also “refer the case report to the appropriate government agency or industry body”.

Flight Risk had not replied to the March, August or September 2026 breach decisions when the reports were published. In all three rulings, the ads stayed visible after the decision.

Meta “has been informed of the decision” in the August case, the March ads “have been referred to Meta”, and the September case “will be sent to Meta for review and action”.

We could not find on Ad Standards’ pages what Meta did with these referrals.

What to Change Before Your Next Creator Post

1. Write rider and driver safety into the creator brief: correctly fastened helmets, road rules and no filming while riding, since the Panel found breaches over loose straps and over a rider filming while riding.
2. Treat every post carrying your paid partnership or collaboration label as your own ad, and see each one before it goes live, because the Panel counted a collaboration post Flight Risk said it had not created as Flight Risk’s own ad.
3. Do not defend an unsafe post by saying it was filmed on private property or that a creator made the content; the Panel found breaches in both situations.
4. Check the creator content you already run against the examples on Ad Standards’ health and safety page, which include unsafe drinking and unsafe actions around water.

Sources

• Ad Standards, case report 0234-26: Flight Risk sponsored Instagram ad found in breach of section 2.6 on 23 September 2026 for loose helmet straps; ad not removed, and the case is to be sent to Meta.
• Ad Standards, case report 0214-26: Flight Risk Facebook paid partnership post found in breach of section 2.6 on 26 August 2026 for a rider without a helmet; the ad remained visible and Meta was informed. Also the text of section 2.6 and its Practice Note.
• Ad Standards, case report 0068-26: three of four Flight Risk Instagram posts found in breach on 25 March 2026, including a collaboration post the Panel said the advertiser appeared to have a reasonable sense of control over; private property did not alter the finding; the ads were referred to Meta.
• Ad Standards, case report 0079-25: five Flight Risk Instagram posts, which Flight Risk said UGC content creators provided, found contrary to section 2.6 on 16 April 2025; four removed and one caption changed.
• Ad Standards, case list: 15 decisions against Flight Risk dated 25 March to 23 September 2026, each listed as Breach, at least four of them concerning posts made with creators.
• Ad Standards, What is advertising?: the codes apply to social media ads and sponsored content the advertiser has a reasonable degree of control over, with or without payment.
• Ad Standards, Health and safety: examples of ads found in breach of section 2.6, including unsafe drinking and unsafe actions around water, and of ads not in breach, including moderate drinking near water.
• Ad Standards, The advertising complaints process: an advertiser in breach is expected to modify or remove the ad; Ad Standards may contact the media owner or platform if it does not; case reports are usually published within 10 days.
• Ad Standards, Responding to a complaint: all advertiser responses are published in the case report, and non-compliance can lead to referral to a government agency or industry body.
• Ad Standards, media release of 30 July 2026: 168 ads referred to the Community Panel from January to June 2026, 72 of them under health and safety, the issue of greatest concern.