By Emma Farncomb & Clint Fillipou

Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Limited (“Toyota”) has skidded off the track with a recent television advertisement featuring the Toyota Yaris GR, which was found to be in breach of clause 2(a) of the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries Voluntary Code of Practice for Motor Vehicle Advertising (“FCAI Code”) for depicting unsafe driving. The “GR” acronym stands for “Gazoo Racing”, Toyota’s motorsport division, and the Yaris bearing its name is a modern “hot hatch” with styling cues taken directly from the model that competes in the World Rally Championship. Understandably, Toyota was keen to inject some of this brand halo and racing credentials into the relevant advertisement, but this is always very difficult to do.

As a brief overview, the television advertisement brought before the AdStandards Community Panel (“AdStandards”) showcases a stunt driver in full safety gear racing around a track, over jumps, and later drifting the Toyota Yaris GR through an empty shed. The driver speeds through boom gates, continuing to do laps in tight loops and sliding around corners of the shed. Within the final scene, the car skids into a park next to two other models in an outdoor environment, and the statement “GR YARIS… NICE TO KNOW IT COULD” appears on the screen in a headline super. Throughout the advertisement, a disclaimer is also displayed noting that the driver is a “…professional stunt driver…”, the advertisement was “…filmed using a modified vehicle in a closed and controlled environment…” and also includes the wording “…do not attempt to replicate driving and stunts depicted as it may result in serious injury or death…”.

A version of the television advertisement can be viewed here, and some stills from the asset are shown below.

The expected complaints were filed to AdStandards on the basis that the advertisement depicted unsafe driving practices that would breach Commonwealth law or the law of any State or Territory, if it were done on a road or road-related area. Although Toyota attempted to argue in response that the advertisement was part of an organised motor sport, testing or proving activity and as such the inclusion of these scenes was permitted under clause 3 of the FCAI Code, the AdStandards Community Panel disagreed and upheld the complaint. Interestingly enough, Toyota has run with this argument successfully in the past, but the two relevant advertisements (discussed below) had some key differences.

As will be discussed below, this latest decision serves as a key reminder to all motor vehicle advertisers that care must be taken when choosing to include motor sport scenes such as vehicle testing, proving, drifting, speeding or jumping over ramps, and that if they wish to include such scenes in an advertisement, it must be abundantly clear that it is part of a motor sport, testing or proving activity, and that the entirety of the advertisement must be taken into consideration.

Where did Toyota go wrong this time?

In Australia, motor vehicle advertising is governed under the FCAI Code and the overarching advertising code, the AANA Code of Ethics (“AANA Code”).

Under clause 2(a) of the FCAI Code, advertisements for motor vehicles should not portray any of the following:

(a) unsafe driving, including reckless and menacing driving that would breach any Commonwealth law or the law of any State or Territory in the relevant jurisdiction in which the advertisement is published or broadcast, dealing with road safety or traffic regulation, if such driving were to occur on a road or road-related area, regardless of where the driving is depicted in the advertisement.

Given the nature of the motor vehicle industry, there is a strong understanding that motor sports play a critical role in brand promotion and the development and testing of critical technologies, many of which result in safer vehicles. As such, the FCAI Code provides an exemption under clause 3, allowing advertisers to legitimately make use of motor sport, simulated motor sport and vehicle-testing or proving in advertising, provided that care is taken to ensure that depictions of speed, racing and other forms of competitive driving are clearly identified as taking place in this context. In other words, if an OEM has a rich heritage in motor sport (like Toyota does), the FCAI Code makes clear that they should be able to refer to this heritage and ensure that investment flows through to their advertising.

However, when making such references, it must be abundantly clear that any motor sport or racing scenes are shown as being part of an organised motor sport activity, testing or proving activity, and that the scenes in question are not being used in a questionable way. In particular, that the scenes are not being used in a way that contravenes the Code.  Adding a “closed circuit, vehicle test only” disclaimer for example is not a panacea to showing a vehicle doing handbrake turns, etc.

Further, when showing racing it would not be acceptable to depict this on a public road, and any racing or competing vehicles depicted in the motor sport scenes must be in identifiable racing livery. As such, in order to rely on this exemption and be permitted to showcase motor sport scenes such as drifting, driving at high speed or jumping over ramps (which was shown within this advertisement), the relevant conditions must be met and the campaign in question needs to be built from the “ground up”, to ensure later compliance with the FCAI Code. Attempting to manufacture a defence with a disclaimer rarely, if ever, is sufficient.

In response to the complaint that was submitted to AdStandards, Toyota attempted to rely on the abovementioned exemption under clause 3 of the FCAI Code, claiming that the advertisement demonstrated the capabilities of the Toyota Yaris GR to manoeuvre through a series of contextually unrealistic conditions and that the stunt driver (dressed in full racing apparel) was merely showcasing the vehicle’s technical similarities to the Gazoo Racing motor sport vehicles, that participate in various international motor sport events. Toyota’s arguments were strong, and valid, in our view.

However, context is everything. The major downfall of this advertisement was the inclusion of the statement “GR YARIS… NICE TO KNOW IT COULD” in the final scene, which appears on the screen at the time the Toyota Yaris GR skids into a park next to two other models. When considering the overall impression of the advertisement, the panel found that this specific statement, coupled with scenes of the vehicle jumping through the air and skidding through the boom gates, created a clear aspirational link to the driving shown, and removed any suggestion that the scenes were part of racing, vehicle testing or proving. In other words, the advertisement skewed away from being a legitimate depiction of a vehicle testing or proving scenario, and started to look more like a reckless driving showcase that encourages copycat behaviours in young people.  Toyota argued that the tone of this statement was good-natured and indicated that the consumer gets the technical benefits of a vehicle designed for rally motor sports, whilst acknowledging that the scenarios depicted are unrealistic and exaggerated, however, this was dismissed by the Panel. In addition, when determining the outcome, the Panel further noted that the vehicle itself did not showcase racing livery or anything that limited the context to motor sports, vehicle testing or proving and as such, fell short of meeting the requirements under clause 3 of the FCAI Code. Given this determination, it can also be noted that this advertisement would have breached the AANA Code provisions relating to prevailing community standards on health and safety, if relevant.

To further the discussions above, although the advertisement included a disclaimer, the Panel considered that it was hardly noticeable. Even if the disclaimer had been displayed in a prominent way, this would likely not have altered the Panel’s decision, as a disclaimer cannot, in any way, be used to justify the inclusion of material which otherwise does not comply with the FCAI Code.

As we have mentioned, there are strict requirements and conditions that need to be met in order to rely on the exemption afforded under clause 3 of the FCAI Code and to be permitted to include motor sport, testing, proving and similar scenes, within motor vehicle advertisements. Dressing a stunt driver in racing apparel is not enough to tick that box, and extra components and clear indicators need to be included to ensure that it is abundantly clear that such scenes are part of an organised motor sport, testing or proving activity. As will be discussed below, this can be achieved in a variety of ways, for example, advertisers could include safety marshals/staff to emphasise that it is an organised event, they could include orange safety cones to showcase a closed track or start line, or advertisers could include a sign that expressly states the environment is a “test” area or similar.  Again, these items are necessary to build in at the outset of scripting, concepting and prior to production, and cannot be explained away sufficiently with a disclaimer tacked on at the end. Even in this Yaris GR case, Toyota did so much right but the final end-screen super was apparently enough to negate all the hard work.

How the legendary Toyota 86 advertisement (2012) differs from the Toyota Yaris GR advertisement (2025) — and what Toyota did right that time

Those with long memories may remember the legendary Toyota 86 advertisement, which is a showcase example of how to satisfy the FCAI Code and still pull off a brilliant ad. The 86 advertisement, timed to coincide around the launch of the 86 in 2012, features world-famous drift racer Keiichi Tsuchiya, who maps out the ultimate track for the Toyota 86 by driving it on a temporary proving ground. While creating the ultimate track, the Tsuchiya is drifting the vehicle with his trademark gearshifts, accelerating, steering and clutch mastery. The vehicle is depicted as being driven at speed during this time. At the end of the advertisement, the driver leaves behind an imprint of what he believes is the ultimate track for the Toyota 86 based on his experience.

The 86 advertisement was reviewed by AdStandards following a complaint alleging that it portrayed unsafe driving and excessive speeding, thereby being in breach of section 2(a) of the FCAI Code.

Although at a glance, the 86 advertisement incorporates scenes of drifting and racing, some of which are very similar to the Toyota Yaris GR advertisement, there are key components and inclusions in the Toyota 86 advertisement (as noted below) that resulted in the Panel dismissing the complaint.

To view a version of the Toyota 86 advertisement, click here.

When viewing the 86 advertisement, it is clear that care was taken when crafting this advertisement, and it was developed from the ground up, with FCAI Code compliance in mind. This is not always possible with advertisements produced in other markets, but in this case the local agency clearly did their homework. As can be noted, the advertisement included key hallmarks and scenes that indicated the vehicle was part of a “testing” activity. All disclaimers and supers and other scenes were consistent with this message, reinforced it, and did not deviate from it. Some scenes that supported Toyota’s argument and defended the complaint are as follows:

• At the beginning of the advertisement, there are extensive scenes of preparation and discussion within an office-style environment where the driver and crew are seen discussing the plans, preparing for the event, mapping out the track etc;
• Before the vehicle drives anywhere, the advertisement shows aerial shots of the Australian outback and includes the text “Outback Australia – Toyota testing area”;
• There are crew members in high visibility gear setting up safety cones and preparing this area;
• At the time the car drives off, there is a large electronic sign that indicates that it is a testing area; and
• Most notable perhaps is what is missing from the advertisement – there are no scenes of hoon behaviour, cheering on environmental damage, or implying that driving recklessly would be encouraged or condoned, etc.

All of the above assisted Toyota’s arguments greatly when responding to the complaint in 2012, and the consistent reference to “testing” confirmed that the scenes of the vehicle racing and speeding were in the context of a motor sports testing and proving activity, being permitted under clause 3 of the FCAI Code.

Key Learnings

As can be seen, in order to rely on the exemption under clause 3 of the FCAI Code, advertisers need to ensure that it is abundantly clear to viewers that such motor sport scenes are, in fact, taking place in the context of a motor sport, testing or proving activity. When comparing the Toyota 86 advertisement to the Toyota Yaris GR advertisement, it demonstrates how easy it is to get it wrong and the importance of taking caution when developing motor vehicle advertisements, down to the fine details.

We all know too well how much effort, time and expense goes into developing these incredibly well-crafted and exciting advertisements, therefore, if you have grand ideas that involve the inclusion of motor sport scenes such as drifting, driving at high speeds or jumping over obstacles, it is important to consider the FCAI Code at the early stages of production to ensure all the necessary indicators are included and reliance on clause 3 of the FCAI Code can be upheld. When using materials from other markets, the challenges can be greater but they are not impossible to overcome.

Contact us

If you would like further information on motor vehicle advertising, or how to craft automotive advertising to ensure compliance with the FCAI Code or its exceptions, please contact our experts below.

Co-authored by