Three Australian fashion brands have been caught showing “unhealthily thin” models in their advertising, with Ad Standards forcing them to take down each piece of content.
Manning Cartell, Viktoria & Woods, and Melbourne-based label Effie Kats have each been told their adverts breached section 2.6 of the AANA’s Code of Ethics at the end of last year.
But all three argued against the complaints, each citing similar points, including that the models were sourced from reputable and licensed modelling agencies.
In an email to its customers, Manning Cartell shared content featuring a model wearing a pink dress. According to an Ad Standards Community Panel review, the model did not appear to have excessively thin arms or facial features, but noted that her chest area “appeared to noticeably show ribs and sternum, which suggests a very thin layer of skin over this area.”
Lighting was considered to have possibly played some part in this.
Within the review, a minority of the panel considered that the body type shown was not likely to be viewed as inconsistent with community standards on healthy body types, and that this appeared to be a tall, lean model. However, a majority of the panel considered that the image creates an expectation that the ideal body type is one that is thin enough for ribs and sternum to be visible through the skin.
“The panel considered that this was contrary to community standards on health and safety, and that it could be seen as condoning unhealthy behaviour to achieve such body types. The panel considered that this was not justifiable in the context of the product advertised.”
In the Viktoria & Woods case, a website ad featured a model dressed in black pants and a black bra or bikini top.
An Ad Standards Community Panel pointed out that the model depicted in one of the pictures was posed in a hunched manner that accentuated features like collarbones and thin arms. This also had the effect of reducing the relative size of her torso to her head and limbs.
“A minority of the panel considered that this pose was unfortunate, and emphasised thinness, but did not view this as encouraging or condoning unrealistically thin body types,” the Ad Standards case report reads.
“The majority of the panel, however, considered that this pose portrays an unrealistically thin image. The majority of the panel considered that, in using this particular photo, the advertiser appears to be condoning such gaunt appearances.”
In the end, the panel considered that, in the context of community standards that have evolved to accept and encourage healthy body types of varying shapes and sizes, using images that appear to show unhealthily thin models would likely be viewed as contrary to prevailing community standards on health and safety.
As for Effie Kats, the brand shared an Instagram post featuring scenes from an upcoming 'SS26' fashion range. In one image, a model is shown, and her ribs are visible.
The image appears to have been taken during a runway shoot, with the panel saying that it might have been impacted by “unflattering lighting”, which appears to come from overhead.
According to the panel, the image clearly shows ribs and clavicles protruding through the model’s skin, suggesting excessive thinness.
“The panel noted that the model does not appear to be reaching or stretching in a way that would likely emphasise these areas, but was merely standing with her arms relaxed by her side,” the case report read.
“The panel acknowledges that runway models tend to be lean, but considered that featuring a very thin model as part of a runway shoot creates a subtle message that this is what all aspiring models should look like, or that this is what customers should aspire to look like in this dress.
“The panel considered that such communication runs contrary to prevailing community standards on healthy body images.”
All three adverts were discontinued after each brand made a case for the adverts in question.
Manning Cartell, Viktoria & Woods and Effie Kats all confirmed the models were sourced from licensed modelling agencies, and that all take matters of health and safety quite seriously.
Manning Cartel told the panel that its pink dress image was created to highlight the design, construction and fit of a new-season garment.
“The plunging V neckline and fitted silhouette are intentional features of the design,” the brand noted. “The shoot followed a moody, high-contrast, film-style aesthetic, with grading applied to achieve a deeper tonal range in line with standard fashion photography practices.
“Some poses and angles, together with intentional moody grading, can emphasise certain features through shadow and contrast. The model is a professional working model in good health, presented confidently, with natural body definition.”
Manning Cartell added its size range spans AU 4 to 18 and that its content across all digital channels “celebrates” all women of diverse ages, races and body types.
Viktoria & Woods took their argument one step further, pointing out that section 2.6 of the code does not prescribe what a ‘healthy weight’ model should be, as this could be exclusionary.
“Viktoria & Woods is committed to diversity and inclusion across all its marketing campaigns,” the company said. “Our collections are designed to be worn by a wide range of women, and we actively cater to our customer base through a variety of sizes and styles.”
The brand added that the model depicted is 179 centimetres tall and of a naturally slim and healthy athletic build – “which is common in high fashion”.
Alongside this, the label noted its clothing comes in a range of standard sizes, from 4AU to 14AU, with sizes being available both smaller and larger than the one worn by the model.
Meanwhile, Effie Kats shared similar sentiments in its argument, including that all models undergo agency health checks and meet professional industry standards, which include safe body weight ranges, fitness to work and wellbeing assessments.
The Melbourne label noted that the visibility of the rib area in its advert in question is a natural consequence of the model’s posture, movement and the strong directional runway lighting.
“When models raise their arms, elongate their torso, or rotate their upper body mid-stride, the rib structure can become visible regardless of weight or health status.”
“The imagery reflects standard, common fashion industry presentation as consistently seen in global runway photography.”
These cases join other brands pinged in 2025 over model weight sizes, including Aje Studio and Bec + Bridge, with both also having to remove the adverts in question.
Viktoria & Woods also fielded another complaint over a model's weight in a different advertisement in late 2025, with that one resulting in the complaint being dismissed. That advert, being an Instagram post shared on the Broadsheet Melbourne account, featured two images.
The first image was of a woman wearing a beige-coloured backless dress. The second image was of a woman wearing a red dress.
In its assessment, the Ad Standards Community Panel considered that the model was lean but did not appear to be unhealthily thin. The panel also considered that it is not uncommon to see people’s scapulae when their backs are exposed – as is the case in the one image.
They noted that this is probably more pronounced in lean people, but did not consider this as an indication that the model was of an unhealthy or unrealistic body type.
“The panel further considered that the image did not create an impression that people must look like this to wear the advertiser’s clothing, and did not suggest that other body types would not be permitted or able to wear the advertiser’s clothing,” the case report read.
“The panel considered that there was nothing to suggest that the model’s image was altered to distort proportions or to create an unrealistic look that would not be attainable through healthy practices. In addition, the panel considered that the model was not posed in a way that emphasised thinness or communicated a need to be extremely thin.
“The panel considered that the ad did not communicate unrealistic body ideals that could lead to harmful body dissatisfaction, or that would be contrary to community standards on health and safety.”