ASA Adjudication on Midasplayer.com Ltd

Ad

A TV ad for King.com showed a woman playing online games. The voice-over stated "There are loads of great puzzle games at King.com like Bejeweled. It's so easy to learn, just switch two gems to create a row of three but to win you've go to be really fast". Action from the game was shown on-screen followed by the image of a cartoon caricature of a woman's head against a pink background with white stars and the text "#1". The player stated "I've done it again, I've won. Yes!". She threw her hat into the air and stood with her arms opened in a catching pose. The room then darkened and she appeared in a beam of light. A 20 pence piece flipped in the air and fell slowly into the woman's hand. She stated gleefully, "I won 20p!". The ad continued with extracts of other games including those identified as "Chuzzle" and "Word Link". On-screen text stated "Up to £30,000 jackpots". The female player was then shown wearing an evening gown and tiara, holding a bouquet of roses and having her photograph taken while the voice-over stated "Play great puzzle games for pennies or play for free. You'll have a blast however much you win at King.com".

Issue

1.  A viewer was concerned that the ad, which she understood was for a gambling product, was likely to be of particular appeal to children.

The ASA challenged whether the ad:

2.  was misleading and exploited the susceptibilities, aspirations and credulity of children, and

3.  included a person who appeared to be under the age of 25 in an ad for a gambling product.

BCAP TV Code

Response

Midasplayer explained that the games offered on the King.com website were games of skill only and were not "gaming" or "gambling" as defined by The Gambling Act 2005.  They said the rules of Section 11 of the CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code (BCAP Code) should not, therefore, apply in this instance.  They explained that, although King.com did not provide any 'gambling' products, their website included a link to a separate website, Royal Games.com, which did offer gambling products and services, but pointed out that none of those were referred to in the ad.  They explained that King.com and Royal Games had the same ultimate business owner, but were operated by separate companies, from different jurisdictions and with different boards of directors; Royal Games was hosted in Malta and licensed by the Lotteries and Gaming Authority and King.com was hosted in Sweden and did not need a license to operate.  Should players on the King.com website click onto the Royal Games link, they were directed to an interstitial page, which made clear that they were leaving King.com and entering Royal Games.com, a licensed gambling site where players must be over 18 years of age.   Midasplayer reiterated, however, that the ad related only to products on the King.com website.  They added that the link to Royal Games was removed from the King.com homepage during the period of time the ad was broadcast and for one month afterwards.

Clearcast explained that they understood that the games available for play on King.com were games of skill only.  At clearance stage, they were concerned, however, about the inclusion of ads for Royal Games.com, a gambling website, on the King.com homepage.  They believed, because the King.com website promoted a site, Royal Games.com, on which gambling could take place, the gambling rules applied and a scheduling restriction to accommodate a gambling product should apply to the King.com ad.  However, they explained that King.com had given an assurance that the weblinks to Royal Games would be removed from their homepage so that the King.com ad could be broadcast without a scheduling restriction.  

On learning of the complaint, Clearcast checked the King.com homepage and found that the weblinks for Royal Games.com had been put back again.  They immediately applied the appropriate timing restriction for gambling products which meant that the ad should not be advertised in or adjacent to children's programmes or programmes commissioned for, principally directed at or likely to appeal particularly to audiences below the age of 18.

1. & 2.  Midasplayer explained that, although King.com did not offer any gambling products, they had self-imposed a restriction, similar to that which was obligatory on licensed gambling sites, which prevented minors making transactions; children were unable to participate in any King.com tournaments where money was staked.  They said, because of this, the ad was not aimed at children and, therefore, they refuted that it was an attempt to mislead or exploit them.  

Midasplayer noted, however, a viewer had been concerned by the ad.  Although in their view ads for King.com products did not promote gambling services and were not, therefore, legally obliged to carry "over 18s only" notices, they said they were willing to ensure that all future TV ads for King.com included that warning.  

3.  Midasplayer explained that, because the ad did not promote a gambling product in their view, regulations relating to the age restriction of characters featured in ads for gambling products and services did not apply.

Assessment

The ASA understood that Midasplayer believed the ad did not offer a gambling product, because the games included on the King.com website were games of skill only.   We also understood that the games offered by King.com were games of skill and noted text on the King.com homepage stated that King.com was a skill gaming site.  

Midasplayer had pointed out, however, that the King.com homepage featured a link to a gambling site, Royal Games.  On viewing the King.com website, we considered that its presentation was such that the two companies, King.com and Royal Games, appeared interrelated; the interactive tabs running across the top of the homepage included "ROYAL GAMES" together with links to other elements of King.com, "MY ACCOUNT", "COMMUNITY", "SUPPORT" AND "UPGRADE"; listings of the types of games available to play on King.com stated "Puzzle Games", "Royal Games" "Action Games", "Strategy games" etc. as though Royal Games was a sub-section of King.com.  Furthermore, several ads for membership with Royal Games appeared and registered players with King.com were offered a promotion which stated "BECOME ROYALTY @ KING.COM  Upgrade to The Royal Games and enjoy a new range of games including Bingo, with fantastic jackpots and real cash prizes ...". This gave the impression that Royal Games membership was 'an upgrade' option available with the player's King.com account.  Embedded under the "SUPPORT" tab of the King.com homepage was a short presentation that included five headings: "Free Skill Games", "Cash Skill Games", "Fun & Social", "Royal Games" and "Free games".  Text under the "Fun & Social" heading stated "Chat and relax with other players in our Fun & Social Area ..."; the text was accompanied by an animated illustration of a slot machine and five lettered balls, which combined to make the word "BINGO".  Text under the sub-heading "Royal Games" stated "Visit our Royal Games area for a selection of classic games like Bingo, slots and scratch cards ...".  We considered, therefore, that the two companies appeared completely interwoven on the King.com website.  Although we acknowledged that a barrier page existed between King.com and Royal Games.com, which advised players that they were leaving King.com to enter a licensed gaming site, we considered that viewers who generally visited King.com would be presented with both games of skill and games of chance through Royal Games and, regardless of the interstitial page, were therefore offered both non-gambling and gambling products.  

We understood that Midasplayer had removed the link to Royal Games from the King.com website throughout the period the ad was broadcast and intended for it to be absent for one month afterwards.  We noted, however, from Clearcast and our own investigations that links to Royal Games had reappeared on the King.com website within two weeks of the ad's last date of broadcast and within five weeks of the viewer noticing the ad.  We understood that, usually, the two companies, King.com and Royal Games, appeared interwoven as described above and considered that it was not satisfactory to remove reference to Royal Games for a short period in order to avoid scheduling restrictions for a gambling product if that gambling product was simply reintroduced at a later date. The scheduling restrictions were in place to protect vulnerable groups including children, who would not be protected if they were drawn to King.com as a skill gaming site as a result of viewing an ad and which then subsequently introduced a gambling element, Royal Games.  

We understood that the complainant had believed King.com to be a gambling product.  We also understood that, at the time the viewer noticed the ad, only games of skill were featured on the King.com website.  We also noted, however, links to Royal Games were removed only at clearance stage to avoid a scheduling restriction but were subsequently re-introduced after the ad was last broadcast.  We considered, therefore, that, because the links were only removed temporarily, the ad directed viewers to a site where both non-gambling and gambling products were periodically available. It was not the case that the gambling site, Royal Games, had been permanently removed from the King.com website.  We considered it appropriate, therefore, and in accord with the spirit of the BCAP Code, for the King.com ad to be subject to both non-gambling and gambling rules.   

1.  Upheld

We noted the ad included examples of King.com games, including those named "Bejeweled" and "Chuzzled", which featured brightly coloured tokens and characters and showed one of the animated 'heads', which signified a player on the site.  The woman showed delight in winning 20 pence and the voice-over stated "... to win you've got to go really fast ... Play great puzzle games for pennies or play for free ... you'll have a blast at King.com".  We considered that the overall impression, including the simple language, video game-like examples, cartoon images and pocket money-type winning sums, was likely to have particular appeal to children or young persons.  Because ads for gambling products must not be likely to be of particular appeal to children or young persons, we concluded that the ad failed to comply in this regard.

In addition, we noted it was a specific requirement of the Code that TV ads for gambling products had a mandatory scheduling restriction to protect young viewers and the BCAP Rules on the scheduling of TV advertisements stipulated that ads for gambling products could not be advertised in or adjacent to children's programmes or programmes commissioned for, principally directed at or likely to appeal particularly to audiences below the age of 18.

We understood that this ad had been cleared without a restriction on the basis that the gambling element of the King.com service was removed.  Because the removal of the links to Royal Games was only a temporary measure, we considered that a scheduling restriction as outlined above should have applied.

On this point, the ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 1.2 (The spirit of the rules), 7.4.7 (Use of scheduling restrictions), 11.10.2 (b) (Rules for gambling advertisements) and Rules on the Scheduling of Television Advertisements section 4.2.1 (Children and young people).

2.  Upheld

We noted Midasplayer's comments and understood that players were asked to confirm that they were over 18 years of age and to input credit or debit card details before they could engage in game play involving cash prizes.  We also noted, however, that it was possible for all players regardless of age to play for 'jewels' either just for fun or to gain experience and skill for a particular game prior to upgrading their account to play for cash.  

We noted the ad had been cleared without a timing restriction and had been broadcast at times when children could be watching.  We considered that the overall tone of the ad, including the images and small winning sums were likely to be of particular appeal to a young audience.  We also considered that the advertised games would be of interest to children.  We were concerned, therefore, that the ad stated it was possible to win from 20 pence up to £30,000 when it was not possible for children to participate in any games for money.  Because the overall impression young viewers were likely to take from the ad was that the King.com product was suitable for them, not only to play games for free but also to win money, we considered that it misleadingly exploited their susceptibilities, aspirations and credulity and raised unrealistic expectations with regards to winnings.

On this point, the ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising), 7.1 (Misleading advertising and children), 7.1.1 (Children's inexperience), 7.1.2 (Unrealistic expectations) and 11.10.2 (a) (Rules for gambling advertisements).

3.  Not upheld

We disagreed that the ad did not promote a gambling product and considered, therefore, that it should comply with all regulations to ensure that gambling ads were socially responsible, with particular regard to the need to protect children and young persons.  

We noted ads for gambling products must not feature a person under the age of 25 in a significant role.  We understood that the woman was not under 25 years of age and we also considered that she did not appear to be under 25 years of age.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rule 11.10.2 (c) (Rules for gambling advertisements) but did not find it in breach.

Action

The ad should not be broadcast again in its current form.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)