Introduction Today, all the people are exposed to catchy advertisings that promote various goods and services. Children can be regarded as one of the most vulnerable populations whose perceptions largely depend on the impact of media. In this connection, some scholars and practitioners believe that marketing to children should be banned to protect them (Smolin, 2015), while others argue that such marketing cannot be eliminated, but it can be properly regulated by governments and involved companies (Kasser and Linn, 2016; Kraak et al. , 2016). Since food and toys marketing is the most widespread for the children’s segment, this paper will focus on these areas to discuss the identified issue. Examining Reasons for Banning Child Marketing: Food and Toys Marketing is a significant part of commercialisation, with the purpose of promoting goods and services to gain profits. Being attached to the TV, the Internet and various gadgets, children face tons of advertisements: more than 60% of children and adolescents use online resources on a daily basis (Lapierre et al., 2017). The statistics show that every third child in the US and Europe has overweight or obesity, which pose additional health concerns and associated costs (Kelly et al. , 2015). In particular, diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular problems, anxiety and depression are among the major adverse consequences (Kelly et al. , 2015). The potential role of marketing in this situation is explored by a range of studies, which point to child behaviours regarding food and beverage consumption. According to Barquera et al . (2018), marketing creates an obesogenic environment in elementary schools and lower-income communities, which was established on the sample of 60 schools in two Mexican cities. The study indicates that food marketing strategies were not consistent with the Pan American Health Organisation (PAHO) recommendations. While obesity and overweight compose one reason for banning or regulating child marketing, there is a link with movies as entertainment. The study by Dixon et al. (2017) found that movie tie-in premiums (MTIPs) shape the preferences of children, making them choose unhealthy options. The participants of the investigation were more likely to choose McDonald’s Happy Meals compared to healthier meals, when the former were shown on videos. At the same time, children selected healthy foods in the case when only healthy meals were presented in the video. The authors claim that food marketing to children should be restricted, and practices encouraging healthy nutrition should be promoted. Similar suggestions are provided by Kasser and Linn (2016), who propose policy adjustments to reduce child exposure. According to Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model of development, the economic system impacts children; for example, corporate capitalism underestimates child nutrition and prioritises profits (Kasser and Linn, 2016). To address the negative impact, businesses can reduce and make their advertising less lucrative, and governments can issue special policies (Taillie et al. , 2019). For instance, fast food billboards should be located at a certain minimum distance from schools. Food marketing pressure on children and adolescents is complicated by the tendency of this population to underestimate