ASA Ruling on LeoVegas Gaming
A tweet from King Casinos UK, seen throughout December 2016 and January 2017, stated “It still hasn’t been fixed!” Beneath the post was a link which stated “Big wins for Brits after online casino’s ‘glitch’”. The tweet linked through to a page which described a bonus offer from LeoVegas, an online casino.
Two complainants challenged whether the ad misleadingly implied that a fault with an online casino’s website was allowing consumers to win when gambling.
The ASA challenged whether the ad did not make clear its commercial intent.
LeoVegas Gaming said that the ad was created by Nyheter, who was a marketing partner of LeoVegas. They said, following advice on the ad from CAP relating to the use of the terms “glitch” as well as “loophole”, most articles had been taken down immediately. Some content with the word “glitch” had still remained online, but had recently been removed entirely.
LeoVegas said that all appearances of their promoted content by Nyheter appeared as “Sponsored” or “Promoted” ads depending on the platform and that all promoted posts led to a host page which was, they believed, clearly marked as an advertisement and contained only LeoVegas content and ads. They stated that all posts contained a commercial call to action and clearly linked to terms and conditions, the age requirement of 18+ and the Gamble Aware website.
The ASA considered that consumers would interpret the claim “It still hasn’t been fixed! Big wins for Brits after online casino’s ‘glitch’”, to mean that because of a fault with an online casino’s website, players were able to win large amounts. We considered that this would entice consumers into clicking through to see how they may be able to take advantage of the glitch which may increase their chances of winning. We acknowledged that the advertiser had advice from CAP and they had removed the link to the ad.
We noted that the tweet had linked to a page which explained that LeoVegas had a new bonus offer and were giving away free spins and we understood that there was no “glitch” or fault with their system as stated; we therefore concluded that the ad was misleading.