Not quite sure about that… yeah, chokes aren't considered "legal" in many circumstances… but much of that is not in the self defence law, it's to do with security and law enforcement training and procedure. Additionally, while "chokes" are out, "strangulations" aren't… the difference in classification is whether it interrupts the blood flow (strangulation), or the airways (choke). A choke has the potential to cause some internal damage (swelling and bruising) which can close off the airway even after the choke is released… sometimes half an hour or more later… so are considered more "potentially lethal". Strangulations, on the other hand, don't have this potential drawback, so are considered "safe" to use and apply. A rear naked choke would classify as a strangulation in these terms, rather than a choke (despite the name), so is still "legal". Of course, in self defence, it comes down to a lot more than that… but I basically teach strangulations rather than chokes in the main to avoid such a potential legal battle occurring down the track. (Note: the definitions I have given are as I understand current Victorian law… medically speaking, the definitions are often a bit different, with strangulation being an external restriction on airflow [or blood flow], and choking is internal [such as choking on a chicken bone, for example]).
The technique featured in the video is a blood constriction… a strangulation… which would be fine, in the main. I do agree with the idea of not necessarily using it to advertise in that way, but that's a personal interpretation of the ad itself… it raises a few questions for me, but not worth getting into here.