Out-Law / Your Daily Need-To-Know

Out-Law News 2 min. read

Gambling company should have identified itself in campaign ads, says ASA


A casino games gambling company has been told it should have identified itself on adverts it ran criticising betting shop gambling terminals. The company, Prime Table Games, had claimed that it would not benefit commercially from the campaign.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said that the company should have identified itself because it might derive benefit from the advertising activity and because consumers have a right to know who is behind the messages they are exposed to.

"The ad was placed by a commercial company, Prime Table, who may or may not benefit from such a change in policy. We considered that it was important for readers, who may be deciding whether or not to lend their support to the campaign, to be aware of the organisation behind it," said an ASA ruling which banned the adverts. "Since it was not clear from the ad that Prime Table was the advertiser, we concluded that it could mislead."

Prime Table placed a magazine ad calling for people who saw it to 'terminate the terminals', the fixed-odds betting machines located in betting shops. Prime Table invents and promotes versions of casino table games, such as three card poker and 'ptg poker'.

Prime Table argued that betting terminals were loaded in favour of the operator and against the gambler more heavily than casino games and that the fast style of gambling possible on them was likely to encourage problem gambling.

"Prime Table considered that terminals were more accessible to vulnerable people than other forms of gambling, such as casino gambling," said the ASA ruling's account of its submission. "Prime Table said they conducted their own research by playing terminals and watching and talking to the players. Their research concluded that the interaction of the table game content, as delivered on terminals, coupled with the type of player typically attracted to terminals, would result in a long-term increase in problem gambling. They did not submit a copy of their research findings."

The adverts said that betting terminals "flout" Gambling Act provisions on socially responsible gambling. It said that "games on betting shop gambling terminals are wholly unfair when compared to their casino equivalents" because "the probability that players lose all their available cash on a session is higher".

The ASA said that such seemingly factual had to be backed up by evidence, which Prime Table did not provide. "We noted … we had not seen robust documentary evidence in support of the claims in the ad and noted they were supported primarily by anecdotal evidence. We considered that the claims were presented as assertions of fact rather than opinion and … could mislead," said its ruling.

The company's claim that terminals were unfair because they offered poorer odds than casino table gambling was also rejected by the ASA.

"We understood that Prime Table believed that, because games on fixed odds betting terminals offered poorer odds than their casino equivalents, they were wholly unfair by comparison," it said. "We considered, however, that poorer odds did not equate to unfair gambling and concluded that the description of fixed odds betting terminals as wholly unfair when compared to their casino equivalents was inaccurate and misleading."

Prime Table's failure to identify itself as the company responsible for the adverts might also see it fall foul of laws designed to protect consumers from unfair marketing.

The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations are designed to make sure that marketing and advertising are clear, fair and responsible. They say that identification of the advertiser is key.

They say that identification of the trader is essential information in any invitation to purchase. They also say that commercial practices must be fair.

"A commercial practice is a misleading omission if … the commercial practice omits [or] hides material information … and as a result it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise," say the Regulations.

It is possible that the Regulations would not apply, though, since a court could take the view that Prime Table's campaign was neither a commercial practice nor an invitation to purchase.

We are processing your request. \n Thank you for your patience. An error occurred. This could be due to inactivity on the page - please try again.