The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has upheld complaints made against three Play’n GO banner adverts that were deemed “likely to strongly appeal” to children.
The first advert featured beside the email inbox of two children and showed a cartoon Easter bunny in a superhero outfit holding a basket of eggs, alongside text that read: “MYSTERY EGG SURPRISE”, “Easter Eggs” and “EASTER EGGSPEDITION”, with both the Play’n GO logo and an 18+ symbol visible.
A second ad was shown next to another email inbox, showing a cartoon robot DJ’ing, as well as the words, “SPINNING RECORDS INTO THE BEAT”. This was accompanied by logos for Play’n GO, the Gambling Commission, GambleAware and 18+.
The third ad featured all the same logos and was seen adjacent to a child’s email inbox, with this banner showing three anime-style cartoon princesses, with text that stated: “Moon Princess Origins”.
Two separate complainants, both of whom had seen the ads beside their own or their child’s email inbox, raised concerns they displayed content that was likely to appeal to those aged 18 and under.
Play’n GO responded by noting the three ads were for three separate slots titles and all the characters were designed and trademarked to appeal to players of “legal age to gamble in their own jurisdiction”.
While the supplier conceded that the images could potentially be appealing to children, Play’n GO outlined its stance that the gameplay for each title required an “adult mindset” and therefore unattractive to children as a result.
The company informed the ASA that its ads were run through Adroll, a programmatic advertising platform.
Play’n GO did flag to the ASA that during the bidding process for ad space, all of the ads were identified as related to gambling to ensure they were only issued to websites that had opted to include gambling ads.
All the banners included 18+ labelling, responsible gambling messaging and the logos of the Gambling Commission and GambleAware, argued the supplier.
Any user who had visited the Play’n GO website could be the subject of retargeted ads while browsing other sites, but the supplier noted that the cookie-consent banner shown on its site meant the tracking only worked with the user’s consent.
The company said its requirement for visitors to confirm they are of legal age to gamble was an additional safeguard to help guarantee retargeted ads were directed only to those over the age of 18.
Play’n GO acknowledged the possibility that a child could be exposed to targeted adverts if an adult user is sharing the same IP address, but that such a situation is a limitation that comes with programmatic advertising and is beyond its control.
Adroll offered comments in support of the Malta-headquartered Play’n GO, reiterating that the supplier’s website aimed to deter under-18s from access via its age-gate.
Additionally, Adroll asserted that Play’n GO did not publish the ads with the intention of appealing to those under the legal gambling age and had either been the subject of a retargeting or a “lookalike” campaign, where individuals whose browsing habits resembled that of Play‘n GO’s legal audience.
Outlining is reasons for uploding the complaints, the ASA explained that while players could not gamble directly with Play’n GO, the company provided gambling software and was licensed by the Gambling Commission.
Section 16 of the CAP Code stipulates that gambling ads “must not be likely to be of strong appeal to children or young persons, especially by reflecting or being associated with youth culture”.
The ASA also noted, in accordance with CAP guidance, that all of the trademarked characters shown in the three ads were “high risk of being of strong appeal to children and therefore should be avoided in ads for gambling products”.
Therefore, all three ads fell foul of CAP Code rules 16.1 and 16.3.12 (Gambling) and were deemed to be appealing to under-18s.
The ASA noted that all three ads would have been acceptable had they appeared in a medium where under-18s could be excluded from the audience.
The media watchdog also ruled that the targeting measures deployed by Adroll, which relied on the data from users self-declaring their age upon entering the Play’n GO site, were “not sufficiently robust to ensure under-18s were entirely excluded”.
The ASA said: “We therefore considered that Play’n GO Malta had not excluded under-18s from the audience with the highest level of accuracy required for gambling ads, the content of which was likely to appeal strongly to that age group.
“For those reasons, we concluded that the ads were irresponsible and breached the code.”
Play’n GO has been informed by the ASA that the three ads must not appear again in their current form and to avoid using imagery that could be deemed appealing to under 18s in future ads.
Elsewhere, Mecca Bingo became the subject of a similar complaint regarding a Facebook post that called on users to name Tom Hanks films through deciphering relevant emojis.
In that case, the complainant argued that the use of emojis meant the post appealed to those under the legal gambling age, but the complaint was not upheld by the ASA.
The regulator ruled that of the 32 emojis shown in the Facebook post, not enough were judged to directly appeal to children.
EGR has contacted Play’n GO for comment in response to the ASA ruling.
The post ASA upholds complaints over trio of Play’n GO online banner ads first appeared on EGR Intel.
Three of the supplier’s ads deemed likely to resonate with under 18s and a breach of the CAP Code
The post ASA upholds complaints over trio of Play’n GO online banner ads first appeared on EGR Intel.