Beyond compliance — the urgent need for child-centric advertising regulation

The City of Johannesburg has launched a citywide enforcement operation targeting illegal outdoor advertising (Operation Buya Mthetho), citing safety risks, interference with infrastructure and lost municipal revenue. Strong enforcement of by-laws is welcome. However, if outdoor advertising enforcement focuses only on structural legality and revenue collection, it risks missing a deeper concern: the public health and children’s rights implications of what fills our shared public spaces.

Outdoor advertising is highly visible and unavoidable. It shapes social norms in shared public spaces. The question is therefore not only whether a billboard is lawfully erected, but whether its content aligns with the government’s broader public health and constitutional obligations.

The City’s enforcement initiative

Operation Buya Mthetho, announced by the executive mayor, cites safety risks, interference with critical infrastructure and loss of municipal revenue as major concerns. The operation involves strict regulatory enforcement and on-the-ground inspections across multiple regions to enforce the City’s by-laws.

The City’s initiative is not the primary target of critique; rather, it serves as a window into deeper policy choices about scope, balance and priorities. When enforcement is framed primarily around revenue collection and safety compliance, it risks sidelining equally critical concerns around public health and child protection.

Outdoor advertising is not only a question of municipal compliance, but also of what the state permits children to see, absorb and normalise in unavoidable public spaces. The dangers extend beyond physical safety to include the cumulative impact of exposure to harmful content.

Legal placement does not necessarily confer public health legitimacy. A billboard may comply with permitting requirements yet still contribute to harm. This reveals a gap between regulatory compliance and substantive public health protection.

A child-centred approach to enforcement

Outdoor advertising cannot be avoided, concealed or switched off. Due to this nature, children cannot be shielded from it in the same way they can from other media.

Evidence shows that children’s exposure to marketing of harmful products normalises their presence in daily life and encourages consumption. Research consistently links children’s exposure to alcohol, food, gambling, and tobacco marketing with earlier initiation, increased consumption, and riskier behaviours later in life.

Global evidence further shows that advertising for alcohol, unhealthy foods, and gambling is not randomly distributed but tends to cluster in particular areas. Targeted restrictions on such marketing could improve child health outcomes.

Our Constitution and the Children’s Act support the protection of children from harm, recognising that their wellbeing must come first in any decision that affects them (the best interests principle). In practical terms, that means regulators need to think about what children experience in their everyday lives.

Many children cannot avoid outdoor advertising on their way to school or while using public transport. When marketing fills these spaces, it becomes part of their daily environment. Placing children’s best interests first means doing more than simply ticking compliance boxes; it entails taking real steps to limit harmful exposure and ensuring that public spaces are safe and supportive for children.

A history of weak enforcement

The City’s approach to outdoor advertising has long been marked by weak enforcement, allowing illegal, unregulated, and unsafe billboards to proliferate with consequences for public safety. Recent structured testing of enforcement and complaints mechanisms, using a mystery shopper methodology, suggests that implementation gaps persist despite existing by-laws.

In the study, complaints about advertisements potentially harmful to children went unanswered, emails received no acknowledgement, and calls were met with automated messages citing high call volumes. These patterns raise serious questions about accessibility, responsiveness and accountability in practice.

The issue is not the absence of regulations, but the lack of effective accountability and enforcement measures within the City. This is inconsistent with principles of administrative justice, which require public entities to act transparently and responsively.

South Africa’s Constitution guarantees the right to just administrative action that is lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair. When complaint mechanisms are inaccessible or unresponsive, it is not merely an operational failure; it raises questions about whether administrative duties are being fulfilled in a manner consistent with constitutional standards.

A more balanced regulatory approach

At present, municipal by-laws regulate the physical placement of outdoor advertisements, while advertising content is largely governed through voluntary self-regulation by the Advertising Regulatory Board. This division creates a fragmented regulatory architecture and means that there is no single statutory public authority ultimately accountable for protecting children from harmful content in outdoor spaces.

Reliance on voluntary self-regulation is insufficient where children’s health and rights are implicated. Limiting oversight to municipal by-laws alone risks further fragmentation and legal uncertainty. A coherent national framework addressing both placement and content would provide clearer accountability and more consistent child protection.

Protecting children from harmful outdoor advertising requires a broadened regulatory focus. This could include clearer and accessible complaints portals, published response timelines, formal referral protocols between municipalities and advertising bodies, and child-sensitive placement restrictions, particularly near schools and transport routes.

Enforcement must move beyond revenue and structural compliance to reflect the government’s broader public health and constitutional obligations. When public space is unavoidable, so too is the state’s duty to safeguard those most vulnerable within it. DM

Nosiphiwo Nzimande is a researcher at the South African Medical Research Council/Wits Centre for Health Economics and Decision Science – Priceless SA, Wits School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.

Sameera Mahomedy is a senior researcher at the South African Medical Research Council/Wits Centre for Health Economics and Decision Science – Priceless SA, Wits School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.

Susan Goldstein is a public health specialist, managing director and associate professor at the South African Medical Research Council/Wits Centre for Health Economics and Decision Science – Priceless SA, Wits School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.