Don’t say your gambling is “unlimited” (even if it is)
The question
If your gambling claim is true, can it still be deemed socially irresponsible?
The key takeaway
Even if your claim may be true to a certain degree (here, with “full members” of a casino), you cannot say that players have access to “unlimited” or “unrestricted” gambling (or anything similar) as the ASA will consider such a claim to be socially irresponsible.
The ad
A&S Leisure Group’s (t/a Napoleons Casino) website stated “Enjoy unlimited gambling…”, a Facebook post stated “Unlimited Gaming…”, and an FAQ page, again on the website, stated “… you will have access to unrestricted gambling”.
The complaint and the response
A complainant challenged whether the claims “unlimited gambling” and “unlimited gaming” were socially irresponsible. The ASA also challenged whether the claim “unrestricted gambling” was irresponsible.
Napoleons Casinos said they were a fully licensed casino operator based in the UK and as such were governed by the Money Laundering Regulations. Under those regulations, consumers could enter their casinos as visitors without identification or as “full members” who had produced valid identification. Visitors had a limit set on how much they could spend on gaming tables and slot machines and how much they could cash out, but the limits did not apply to full members, hence the term “unlimited gambling”. The casino said that they had decided some time ago that the technically correct claim “unlimited gambling” could be misconstrued and so decided to use the claim “unrestricted gambling” instead and changed all their advertising accordingly. However, some instances were missed as in the current ads and which had been amended. Napoleons Casinos said that they would remove any reference to either “unlimited” or “unrestricted” gambling on all of their web pages and social media and that those claims would not appear in any of their marketing material in the future.
The development
The CAP Code states that ads must not portray, condone or encourage gambling behaviour that is socially irresponsible or could lead to financial, social or emotional harm. The ASA understood that under the applicable Money Laundering Regulations, limits were set as to the amounts that members and non-members of Napoleons Casinos were allowed to spend or cash out at the casino. However, the ASA considered that most consumers would be unaware that the claim “unlimited gambling” referred specifically to those limits set by the regulations.
The ASA considered that the claims “unlimited gambling” and “unlimited gaming” gave the impression that consumers could gamble at the casino without limits or restrictions, therefore the ads promoted that feature as a benefit of using their service which the ASA considered condoned or encouraged consumers to engage in irresponsible gambling behaviour that could lead to financial, social or emotional harm. The ASA noted that Napoleons Casinos had changed their advertising to refer to “unrestricted gambling” instead of “unlimited gambling” to avoid the claim being misconstrued and to clarify the meaning. However, the ASA considered that “unrestricted gambling” would have the same meaning to consumers as “unlimited gambling” and created the same impression that Napoleons Casinos had no limits or restrictions on the amount of time or money that consumers were able to spend in their casinos.
The ASA concluded that the ads were irresponsible and breached the Code. It upheld both complaints, finding that the ads condoned/encouraged consumers to engage in irresponsible gambling behaviour that could lead to financial, social or emotional harm. Therefore, they had breached rule 16 of the CAP Code.
Why is this important?
Alongside the ongoing CAP/BCAP consultation on gambling ads, this ruling represents a continued focus on gambling ads by the regulators and the ASA in particular. Also, it is notable that the two complaints were both upheld on the basis of social irresponsibility, as opposed to the more common ground of misleading consumers.
Businesses in the gambling world need to be aware of the strict rules around socially responsible advertising. This complaint is a useful reminder of how careful they need to be as, even though the veracity of the claims was not in dispute, the ASA nevertheless found against the advertiser for being irresponsible.
Any practical tips?
The obvious takeaway is that gambling ads should not use “unlimited” or “unrestricted” to describe their gambling services. Claims with the same or similar meanings (like “gambling without limits”, for example) should also be considered very high risk. At a general level, gambling advertisers should beware the ASA’s willingness to rely on social irresponsibility as a ground of complaint: just because your claim may be true, doesn’t mean you can always make it.
Winter 2021