Legal View: How Google “badwords” might spell trouble for gambling advertisers
Richard Williams, lawyer at Keystone Law, gives his thoughts on whether the use of Google searchwords might lead to less positive results than required for egaming operators
I have to admit I’m often critical of ASA rulings, but the recent ruling in relation to Casumo Services Limited is one which it’s difficult to argue with. The principle of the ruling means that those advertising gambling must pre-empt internet search terms that trigger adverts but also terms which restrict advertising. As was argued by Casumo in this referral, it may not be possible for operators to anticipate every “negative” search term when creating an advertising blacklist.
The Casumo ruling related to a sponsored advert on Google for its gambling app, which stated “Welcome Bonus to New Players Casumo 100% and 20 Free Spins. Create an Account & Play Now”. This was all well and good for those looking to gamble, but not good for the complainant, who wanted to stop gambling and entered the search term “how to unsubscribe from all gambling”.
Casumo argued that it maintained an excluded search terms list, so that specific terms combined with “gambling” would stop its adverts from appearing. However, it said that it had not anticipated the use of the word “unsubscribe” as a negative keyword. It stated that it associated the word “unsubscribe” with removal from a mailing list or opting out of marketing. Casumo said it did not consider that “unsubscribe” was a term used when an individual wished to self-exclude from gambling and that, in its view, displaying the advert for this search term was not irresponsible. It argued, with some justification, that it is not possible to anticipate every variation and combination of keywords that could be entered when an individual wished to stop gambling. However, as a result of the complaint, Casumo added “unsubscribe” to its negative keyword list and had reviewed its wider list of excluded search terms.
Opt out
Despite these arguments, the ASA ruled that individuals using the term “unsubscribe from all gambling” were likely to be searching for information about opting out of gambling adverts or self-excluding. It noted that the CAP Code required marketing communications for gambling to protect vulnerable persons from harm and concluded that the advert had been irresponsibly targeted and that it must not appear again.
So far so good. If they haven’t already done so, gambling companies can add the word “unsubscribe” to their marketing excluded lists. But what about other “negative” terms and where does the list end? I am told that use of excluded words lists is the norm in the advertising industry and that very few operators should be caught out like this.
To confirm that the word “unsubscribe” was an anomaly, I decided to carry out a bit of “gambling marketing roulette”. It’s not very scientific but a search for “online casino unsubscribe” still displays a lot of sponsored gambling adverts, including adverts from operators. And while “online casino suicide” does not trigger adverts, “online casino depressed” does (mostly from affiliates).
I am surprised that some operators haven’t already picked up on this ruling and revised their marketing blacklists. Clearly, operators and their affiliates still have work to do in this area.