888 and Gala Coral ads banned
Advertising Standards Authority upholds complaints that adverts from the two egaming operators were "misleading".
Gala Coral and 888 are the latest egaming operators to see advertisements fall foul of the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).
An email promotion from Gala Coral and a direct mailing from 888 were both deemed misleading for the way in which they failed to highlight certain elements of bonus offers.
Gala Coral purported to offer players a 100% bonus on a £10 deposit, but did not mention a play-through requirement of £50. According to the ASA, the operator argued that “Customers would understand that they had to play through their deposit a certain number of times from the wording of the ad, which said customers needed to ‘play’ the game in order to ‘release [their] 100% bonus of up to £10′”.
The authority explained, however: We considered that the wagering requirement for this promotion amounted to a significant condition likely to influence customers’ understanding of the offer and as such should have been stated in the ad itself. Because it was not, we concluded that the ad was misleading.”
888’s advert, meanwhile, offered players a “No-deposit bonus,” but attracted complaints when a player was unable to withdraw his winnings as they failed to reach a minimum withdrawal amount not previously specified in the operator’s promotion.
An ASA statement explains: “We considered the minimum £30 withdrawal policy was a significant condition likely to influence players’ initial decision to take advantage of the offer in the first place and should have been stated in the ad. Because it was not, we concluded that the ad was misleading.”
Both ads cannot appear again in their current form following the ASA rulings, while the authority has contacted 888 “To ensure significant conditions were stated in their ads in future.”
In the last two months a number of other egaming sites have been banned, with Gamesys white label Fabulous Bingo and NetPlay’s Supercasino.com brand among the culprits.
Both were banned for linking gambling with enhanced attractiveness, with the ASA saying of NetPlay’s advertisement: “We considered that the references to fame, being special and VIP status in the soundtrack, combined with the admiring way in which the main character was treated by the other characters, linked gambling with recognition, admiration and enhanced attractiveness.”