The advertisement, which features a father explaining to his daughter why sugar is not banned despite its health risks, was found to be potentially confusing. The complainant argued that the ad implied people have the right to make harmful choices without consequences, which could be misinterpreted by young viewers to justify dangerous behaviours beyond sugar consumption.

Said the complainant: "My fear with this father's response is that it might send out the wrong message too already challenged youth. It might create the impression that they have the right to make wrong choices which may include drugs and other illegal activities in the name of democracy."

In its ruling, the ARB Directorate noted that without context from the Department of Health, it was difficult to determine the creative motivation behind the commercial. The ad, which features a father explaining to his daughter why sugar is not banned despite its health risks, attempts to link democracy with personal choice. However, the Directorate found this connection problematic.

The ruling pointed out that while South Africans have the right to choose their sugar intake, there is little evidence that citizens in less democratic nations are denied this choice. Furthermore, the Directorate highlighted that even democratic countries regulate substances like hard drugs, restricting personal choice when it comes to harmful consumption. This contradiction was compounded by the fact that the Department of Health itself is actively working to regulate sugar through policies like the sugar tax and Draft Regulation 3337.

The Department of Health did not respond to the complaint, leading the ARB to base its ruling solely on the complainant’s concerns. The Board found that the advertisement failed to effectively communicate the risks of sugar while introducing an unclear link between democracy and regulation. The ruling serves as guidance for ARB members but is not binding on non-members.