Every February, the Super Bowl transforms from a championship football game into a cultural juggernaut, drawing in not just die-hard fans but also music lovers, casual viewers, and—perhaps most eagerly—advertising devotees. With over 100 million viewers glued to their screens, the stakes for a Super Bowl commercial are sky-high, both in terms of cost and cultural impact. A 30-second spot can set a company back $7 million or more, but the potential rewards—viral buzz, brand recognition, and sometimes notoriety—are seemingly limitless. Yet, as history shows, the path to Super Bowl ad immortality is often paved with controversy.
Some commercials have become infamous for pushing boundaries, sparking heated debates, or simply missing the mark so spectacularly that they end up as case studies in what not to do. From tone-deaf humor and cultural insensitivity to political statements and outright offensiveness, these ads linger in the public consciousness long after the final whistle. According to TIME and Looper, here’s a look back at some of the most controversial Super Bowl commercials ever aired—and the conversations they ignited.
Take Carl’s Jr.’s 2015 “All-Natural” ad, for example. The commercial featured model Charlotte McKinney strutting through a market in revealing attire, suggestively biting into a burger as ogling men looked on. Critics immediately slammed the spot as sexist, with one Twitter user declaring it had “set feminism back four decades.” Undeterred, Carl’s Jr. revived the formula a decade later, swapping McKinney for TikTok star Alix Earle but keeping the bikini. The move proved the brand’s racy approach still stirs debate, with some calling it outdated and others defending it as harmless fun.
On the opposite end of the emotional spectrum was Nationwide’s 2015 “The Boy Who Couldn’t Grow Up.” The ad took a dark turn, featuring a child narrating all the life milestones he would miss because he died young—an attempt to sell insurance through fear. Airing during the festive atmosphere of Super Bowl XLIX, the spot left many viewers unsettled, with some describing it as “downright horrifying.” According to TIME, the ad’s morbid twist clashed so jarringly with the celebratory mood that it became one of the most criticized commercials in recent memory.
Political controversy also found its way into the Super Bowl spotlight. 84 Lumber’s “The Journey Begins” (2017) depicted a mother and daughter crossing the border, a clear nod to the heated immigration debates following Donald Trump’s 2016 inauguration. The ad was so politically charged that Fox refused to air the full version, prompting discussions about the line between marketing and political messaging. The CEO of 84 Lumber later confirmed her support for Trump’s proposed border wall, further fueling the debate.
Sexual innuendo has long been a staple of Super Bowl advertising, but PETA’s 2016 “Last Longer” ad took it to another level. The commercial compared the libido of vegan and meat-eating couples through a series of steamy split-screen scenes, ultimately declaring vegans the winners in the bedroom. While some found the ad humorous, many were outraged by its explicitness. CBS blocked the commercial from airing on Super Bowl Sunday, but not before it had already generated significant buzz—and backlash—online.
Not all controversies are rooted in sex or politics; sometimes, they come from an attempt at dark humor gone awry. General Motors’ 2007 “Robot Suicide” ad is a case in point. The spot featured a factory robot losing its job and, in a moment set to “All by Myself,” leaping off a bridge. What was meant to be a tongue-in-cheek nod to GM’s commitment to quality was widely condemned as “recklessly irresponsible” by mental health organizations, including the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention and the National Alliance on Mental Illness. The ad was ultimately pulled after a wave of complaints.
Super Bowl commercials have also served as battlegrounds for the culture wars. In 2010, Focus on the Family aired “Celebrate Family,” starring Pam Tebow, mother of NFL quarterback Tim Tebow. She shared her decision to refuse an abortion despite medical advice, calling her son a “miracle baby.” The ad, funded by an evangelical Christian group, was criticized by organizations like the National Organization for Women and the Feminist Majority for promoting religious and political philosophies on such a massive stage. Planned Parenthood even produced its own response ad, emphasizing the importance of a woman’s right to make her own medical decisions.
Other brands have stumbled into controversy through cultural insensitivity. Groupon’s 2011 “Tibet” ad began by highlighting the country’s humanitarian crisis, only to pivot to a joke about getting a discount on Tibetan food. Many viewers and critics condemned the spot for trivializing real-world suffering to promote online coupons. Groupon initially defended the ad’s intent but eventually pulled it after sustained backlash.
Super Bowl advertising has also seen its share of outright offensive content. The 2008 Salesgenie “Pandas” ad, for example, featured pandas speaking in exaggerated “Chinese accents,” reinforcing negative stereotypes about Chinese Americans. The company’s chief creative officer, Vinod Gupta, expressed surprise at the backlash, telling The New York Times, “We never thought anyone would be offended. The pandas are Chinese. They don’t speak German.” Nevertheless, the ad was pulled after widespread condemnation.
Attempts at edgy humor have sometimes missed the mark spectacularly. Snickers’ 2007 “Kiss” ad depicted two mechanics accidentally sharing a kiss while eating a candy bar, then recoiling in disgust and performing “manly” acts to reassert their masculinity. LGBTQ advocacy groups like GLAAD and the Human Rights Campaign rebuked the ad, calling out its propagation of casual homophobia in professional sports. Snickers pulled the commercial from circulation, though the company initially cited positive feedback from its target audience.
Other notable misfires include GoDaddy’s 2009 “Shower” ad, which used racy imagery featuring Danica Patrick to promote a web-hosting site, drawing criticism from the National Organization for Women. The 1997 Holiday Inn “Class Reunion” ad, which featured a trans woman as the punchline of a joke about plastic surgery, was also pulled after backlash from both religious groups and women’s organizations. And in 1999, Just for Feet’s “Kenyan Runner” ad, which depicted a Kenyan athlete being hunted and forced to wear Nike sneakers, was so offensive that the company ultimately filed for bankruptcy less than a year after the ad aired.
Even in 2026, controversy remains a potent marketing tool. Anthropic’s “AI vs ChatGPT” ad poked fun at OpenAI’s decision to add ads to its ChatGPT platform, using a personal trainer skit to lampoon the competition. The ad sparked debate over the ethics of targeting rivals in such a public way, with OpenAI CEO Sam Altman calling it “funny” but “dishonest.”
As the Super Bowl continues to be the premier showcase for advertising creativity—and missteps—one thing is clear: the commercials that spark the most debate are often the ones we remember most. Whether they’re celebrated, condemned, or simply puzzled over, they reflect the evolving boundaries of what’s acceptable in American culture and the risks brands are willing to take to make a lasting impression.