Advertisment
A paid-for advertisement on X for the Blackjackist game stated:
“No annoying notifications. No purchases. Just. Good. Old. Blackjack.”
Complaint
The complainant objected to the advertisement on the following grounds:
Issue 1:
The complainant considered that the claim ‘no annoying notifications’ required substantiation.
Issue 2:
The complainant considered the claim that there were no purchases within the game was misleading as they believed that the game included in-game purchases, including random-item purchasing. They considered that the language used in the advertisement implied there was no possibility of any in-game purchases.
Response
Issue 1:
No comment was received regarding the claim ‘no annoying notifications’
Issue 2:
The advertisers stated that they distributed advertising materials with knowledge of the prevailing standards of the ASA Code and of consumer protection legislation.
They said that consumers’ decisions were not influenced by the presence of paid-for features as the advertised game had all functionalities available for free, that all items could be earned for free and that there were no restrictions. They said that the existence of paid-for features did not influence a consumer’s decision to obtain a free product, as the same paid-for features were also available for free.
The advertisers referred to Sections 84 (3) and 90 of the Consumer Rights Act 2022, which required digital service providers to make clear, before contract, all ‘main characteristics’, including optional paid content, ensuring full transparency in advertising and at the point of sale. They said that in their case, the “no purchases” claim referred to the core gameplay experience, which was 100% accessible without any obligation or expectation for payment. They said that it was not misleading to make a claim of no purchases and that 98.8% of their player base did not make a purchase.
The advertisers said that players received free ‘chips’ daily through in-game grants, as per the game mechanic that were not contingent on payment. They said that players did not experience any paywalls, forced upgrades or progress blocks requiring purchase. They also said that players could not buy or win loot boxes or randomised rewards, a category which required prominent disclosure if present.
In regard to the paid features available in the game, they said that their ‘virtual currency’ system complied with both the ASA Code and consumer legislation for the following reasons; earning and using chips was a core, non-monetised feature; any purchase offer was presented as a supplemental convenience, not as a gaming requirement; and that the design of the system intentionally avoided creating a false sense of necessity for purchases. They said that no material information regarding required purchases or loot boxes was omitted or obscured in the advertisement.
Finally, they said that the advertisement was withdrawn prior to their receipt of the complaint and that they continued to review all communications to ensure compliance.
Conclusion
The Complaints Council considered the detail of the complaint and the advertisers response.
Issue 1 – Not Upheld:
The Council noted the Code requirements that a marketing communication should not exploit the credulity, inexperience or lack of knowledge of consumers (4.04) and that a marketing communication should not contain claims – whether direct or indirect, expressed or implied – which a consumer would be likely to regard as being objectively true unless the objective truth of the claims can be substantiated (4.09).
The Council considered that the claim ‘no annoying notifications’ was one that could be a factor in a consumer’s decision as to whether to download a game or not, however, they also considered that levels of annoyance may vary from person to person. In this case, the Council, while noting that no comment had been received in relation to the level of notifications, considered the issue was a subjective matter and on that basis, did not consider that the claim was in breach of the Code on the grounds raised.
Issue 2 – Upheld:
The Council noted the Code requirements that a marketing communication should not mislead, or be likely to mislead, by inaccuracy, ambiguity, exaggeration, omission or otherwise (4.01), should not exploit the credulity, inexperience or lack of knowledge of consumers (4.04) and that a marketing communication should not contain claims – whether direct or indirect, expressed or implied – which a consumer would be likely to regard as being objectively true unless the objective truth of the claims can be substantiated (4.09).
The Council considered that the claim that the game did not include any purchases was material to a consumer’s decision whether or not to purchase or download the game. The Council noted that the claim ‘no purchases’ had been made in regard to the core gameplay. The Council considered that the impression created by the advertisement was that the game did not include any in-app purchases and that taking the advertisement as a whole and in context, the statement ‘Just. Good. Old. Blackjack’ reinforced that impression that the game was purely ‘Blackjack’ without any in-app purchases.
As the game did contain the potential for in-app purchases, the Council considered that the advertisement claim that there were ‘no purchases’ was likely to mislead and therefore in breach of Sections 4.01, 4.04, 4.09 and 4.10 of the Code.
Action Required:
The Council noted the advertisement had been withdrawn. They advised advertisers to ensure that the existence of in-app purchases is stated in advertising.
