The milk carton has a label so that you know what is inside it. If you were to put the same graphic on a billboard, does that give you useful information about the billboard? Of course not: the advertisement just attempts to influence the decision you will make when shopping for milk in the future.
Likewise, it's one thing to put a store's logo on the building containing the store, and quite another to put it on a billboard, newspaper, or a TV spot. The sign on the building tells you what's in it, which is useful if you are looking for that store; the advertisement hopes instead to implant a desire to go look for the store, which may not otherwise have occurred to you.
Attempting to create a desire for goods or services people might otherwise never have wanted, in hopes of getting money from them they might otherwise not have chosen to spend, does not seem like it is doing any favors for the people being targeted. While a milder sort than many other forms of evil, I do think advertising qualifies.
It's a push vs pull thing. I don't object to the existence of marketing material being made available for those who want to go looking for it, but to the preemptive intrusion of advertising into spaces where it hasn't been requested.
What I hear in that is "treating people badly is OK as long as it's legal". That may or may not be what you meant, but that's what it sounds like to me. I think that's an ethically unsupportable stance.
Most people aren't trying to 'avoid their spying'. They want something for free, without ads.
