Leisure

The advertisements were a series of three animated videos which were presented to YouTube users. The videos were each of a different theme. One video was Asian themed with images pertaining to that culture, such as lanterns, pagoda-like structures, and dragons. A second and third video depicted adventurer/ treasure hunter characters in settings such as temples and jungles. The script for all three videos was the same: –

Luck of the Irish? Nah, it’s all skill here. Join BetLabel today and grab a massive €1,500 bonus, plus 150 free spins to hit the slots like a pro. Ready to play your cards right? Find us on the web.

Overlain text at the start of the advertisements said Test Your Skill. Further text advertised a Welcome Bonus and 15000 eur + 150 fs (free spins). Text at the end of the advertisement invited viewers to Find us on the web.

Complaint: Three complaints were received in relation to the advertising. There were several issues identified in the three complaints.

Issue 1:
One of the complainants believed that the advertisements could have held particular interest to children.

As an example of this, they referred to the advertisement that contained an Indiana Jones style character as evidence of their contention.

Issue 2:
One complainant said that they had seen the advertisements during videos of video game reviews and that therefore it could have been said that they had been targeted towards children as, in their view, children would have likely been the ‘primary viewer’ for such videos. They said that they had also seen the advertisement through the YouTube Shorts feature and that this meant, in their view, children were indiscriminately targeted.

Issue 3:
Two of the complainants said that Luck of the Irish? Nah, it’s all skill here implied that gambling could be influenced by skill when in fact it is based on chance.

Issue 4:
One of the complaints said that there appeared to be no responsibility message attached to the advertising.

Issue 5:
One of the complainants believed that the advertising had suggested that gambling could have been a solution to financial concerns or personal problems.

No response was received from the advertisers.

The Independent Complaints Council considered the detail of the complaint.

The Council expressed concern at the advertisers’ failure to respond to the complaint. They reminded them that there is an onus on advertisers to ensure that their advertising is in conformity with the Code.

Issue 1 Upheld:
The Complaints Council noted the requirement of Code Section 10.17(a) which stated that marketing communications for gambling products should not be of particular appeal to children or be associated with youth culture. They also considered Code Section 10.17 (b) which said similarly that these communications should also not make direct use of signs, symbols, drawings, fictitious characters or real people of primary or particular appeal to children.

The Council considered the content of the advertisements. While noting that the advertisements utilised animation, they did not consider that the style used was likely to have particular appeal to children.

However, the Council noted that the Code provided that a marketing communication may be found to be in breach of the Code if the advertiser/promoter fails to respond, or unreasonably delays responding, to the ASA. As a response had not been received, The Council found the advertisement in breach of Section 3.10 of the Code.


Issue 2 Upheld:
The Council noted Code Section 10.17 (g) which said that marketing communications for gambling should not be directed towards those under the age of 18 through the selection of media in which they appear.

The Council noted that evidence had not been received to demonstrate that the advertising was not directed towards those under 18. In the absence of such evidence and in the absence of a response, the Council found the advertisement in breach of Code Section 3.10.


Issue 3 Upheld:
The Council considered Code Section 10.14 which required that advertising for gambling products must not imply nor portray that games of chance can be influenced by a player’s skill unless skill can be shown to affect a game’s outcome.

The Council decided that the phrase Nah, it’s all skill here had implied that skill could influence gambling outcomes. In the absence of a response or evidence to show that the claim that the games could be influenced by skill, the Council considered that the phrase was in breach of Code Sections 3.10 and 10.14.




Issue 4 Upheld:
The Council noted the requirement of the Code that marketing communications for gambling services or products shall contain a message to encourage responsible gambling and shall direct people to a source of information about gambling and gambling responsibly (S. 10.10).

In the absence of a response and as no such message was evident in the advertising, the Council considered the advertising again in breach of Code Sections 3.10 and 10.10.


Issue 5 Upheld:
The Council considered Code Section 10.12(c) which prohibited gambling communications from suggesting or implying that gambling can provide an escape from personal, professional or educational problems such as loneliness or depression.

The Council did not agree that the advertisements on the face of it had implied or stated that gambling could have ameliorated personal or financial problems

However, the Council noted that the Code provided that a marketing communication may be found to be in breach of the Code if the advertiser/promoter fails to respond, or unreasonably delays responding, to the ASAI. As a response not been received, the Council found the advertisement in breach of Section 3.10 of the Code.

Action Required:
The advertisements must not reappear in their current form.