ASA Adjudication on Prime Table Games UK

Ad

A magazine ad, which asked readers to join the campaign "Terminate the Terminals", stated "Will you put your name to our campaign to ban betting shop gambling terminals? Fixed odds betting terminals can be found in high street betting shops throughout the UK. We believe there are five good reasons to join our campaign ...". The ad went on to list those reasons. Text at the bottom of the ad stated "What next? Our campaign to Terminate the Terminals is actively pursuing a change in policy ...". It also included a website address which readers could visit to register their support for the campaign.

Issue

1. All Party Betting and Gaming Committee (APBGC) challenged whether the ad was misleading, because it did not make clear the identity of the advertisers.

They also challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:

2. "Betting shops continue to flout these", referring to the objectives of the Gambling Act 2005 - socially responsible gambling, fair and open gambling and no association of crime with gambling;

3. "Games on betting shop gambling terminals are wholly unfair when compared to their casino equivalents" because "The probability that players lose all their available cash on a session is higher"; and  

4. "There is inadequate age verification and sobriety verification of players".

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. Prime Table Games (Prime Table) said the government was encouraging gambling providers to help address problem gambling; this was their response to that campaign.  They added that they did not benefit commercially from it and it was therefore similar to a non-profit or charitable campaign.

They pointed out that the ad invited readers to go to a website where their contact details could be found, along with full details of the fairandopengambling campaign.  Prime Table therefore disagreed that the lack of full contact details in the ad amounted to a breach of the Code.

2. Prime Table said they invented the game, 'Three Card Poker', and were aware that at least one terminal content provider had used it in at least one betting shop premises without their permission.  They believed it was socially irresponsible to obtain revenue from players if the players were not informed that the game was used without the permission of the game inventors.  

Prime Table considered that terminals were more accessible to vulnerable people than other forms of gambling, such as casino gambling.  They supplied several Internet articles, quoting psychiatrists and researchers, to support their view.  

Prime Table said the game of Roulette, as operated on terminals, allowed for lower minimums than most casino table games of Roulette which enabled the player to make more bets and bet more numbers for the same total outlay.  They believed that meant the terminal player had more 'near misses'.  Prime Table said they conducted their own research by playing terminals and watching and talking to the players.  Their research concluded that the interaction of the table game content, as delivered on terminals, coupled with the type of player typically attracted to terminals, would result in a long-term increase in problem gambling.  They did not submit a copy of their research findings.

Prime Table said betting shops were more likely to be located in areas of economic deprivation and areas of high crime; it followed that betting shops were more likely to attract vulnerable people.  They sent a copy of the Department of Culture, Media and Sport's (DCMS) Statistical Bulletin 'Betting Licences', dated 2002-3, which showed the number of betting office licences per head of population according to the licensing area.  Prime Table believed there was a correlation between higher rates of betting shops in urban problem areas and lower rates of betting shops in wealthy counties.

Prime Table said the method of operation of the terminals was that the random number generator (RNG) determined the result and the terminal then displayed that result.  With regard to Roulette, that involved the spinning of the ball and wheel, even though the result had already been determined by the RNG.  By not immediately showing the result, but rather by presenting a spinning video display, the player suspense and anticipation was artificially enhanced.  They believed the video display was a hook which encouraged repetitive and compulsive play.  Prime Table said the unwillingness of Betting Shop operators to make public the percentage of player cash-in on terminals that was retained indicated that they were aware that terminals have an inclination to attract problem gamblers and pointed to a lack of transparency.   

Prime Table said the Gambling Act 2005 did not define the concept of 'fair and open gambling' but they believed it related to the cost the player paid to play the game, often referred to as the 'house edge'.  The house edge was the percentage that a casino would expect to retain, on average, from each hand or spin; the higher the house edge, the less beneficial it was to the player.  Prime Table pointed out however that, while the house edge for each casino game was available in the 'House Edge Guide', the same information was contained on a terminal 'Help' screen and was not available in betting shops in a printed format. They believed the house edge was greater in terminals than casinos for a number of games.  They also believed the hold percentage (percentage of total funds used by players that is won by the house) on terminals was at least double the 15% hold percentage for casinos.

Prime Table believed terminals in betting shops had contributed to increased crime.  They said violent attacks on betting shop staff had increased by 40% in London over the last three years and sent an Internet article in support.  They also provided a proposal and Internet article by an MP which they believed supported their view that terminals were responsible for a rise in crime and problem gambling.  

3. Prime Table said terminal games had higher house edges and were operated at a faster pace than casino games, which they believed confirmed that terminal players would have a more negative experience than those playing in casinos.  

They said anecdotal evidence indicated that casinos typically won around £40 per visit from a player and the average player buy-in was in excess of £200.  Prime Table said that indicated that casino table games operated on a fair margin of less than 20%.  They said, when the impact of a game format on the player bankroll was more negative, the player was more likely to go broke on a playing session and sent a copy of the Three Card Poker Game Format Comparison to support that.  

Prime Table believed the average betting shop terminal player had lower average buy-in than the average casino player and, ignoring the other factors of 'house edge', game pace and operational differences, players with lower buy-in amounts were more likely to go broke.

Further, they believed the content delivery of terminal games was more addictive than the content delivery of the same games in casinos.  Prime Table therefore believed problem gamblers were more likely to play terminals and were more likely to go broke.

4. Prime Table said they observed betting shop staff behaviour and terminal player profiles.  They concluded that betting shop staff did not look at each new player that started playing at a terminal and often did not have adequate line of sight to form an impression of age or sobriety.  Prime Table concluded that underage players and those under the influence of alcohol or other substances played terminals.  

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA noted the ad did not identify Prime Table as the advertiser and referred only to the campaign to 'Terminate the Terminals' and the website address, fairandopengambling.net.  We nevertheless understood that domain name was registered by Prime Table.   

We noted the ad stated "Will you put your name to our campaign to ban betting shop terminals?", "Our campaign to Terminate the Terminals is actively pursuing a change in policy ..." and "To support our campaign, please visit ...".  We considered that readers were likely to infer that the ad was a call for support by a lobby group or non-governmental organisation, who were seeking to ban terminals from betting shops.  We understood, however, that the ad was placed by a commercial company, Prime Table, who may or may not benefit from such a change in policy.  We considered that it was important for readers, who may be deciding whether or not to lend their support to the campaign, to be aware of the organisation behind it.  We noted readers could find out more information about the identity of the advertiser from the website.  However, since it was not clear from the ad that Prime Table was the advertiser, we concluded that it could mislead.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clause 7.1 (Truthfulness).  

2. & 4.  Upheld

We considered that readers were likely to interpret the claims in the ad as factual statements that were capable of objective substantiation.  We noted, however, we had not seen robust documentary evidence in support of the claims in the ad and noted they were supported primarily by anecdotal evidence.  

We considered that the claims were presented as assertions of fact rather than opinion and were therefore capable of influencing readers to support the 'Terminate the Terminals' campaign.  We concluded that the claims could mislead.

On points (2) and (4), the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).  

3. Upheld

We understood that the APBGC believed the claim was misleading because games on fixed odds betting terminals operated on a random basis through use of a Random Number Generator (RNG). The RNG would not know what the player had placed a bet on and it could not influence the outcome; the games could not therefore be described as unfair.  APBGC pointed out that the RNG was independent of the game and was tested by Gambling Commission approved testing houses to ensure the integrity of the bet.

We noted the claim made a comparison between games on betting shop terminals and those played in casinos.  We understood that Prime Table believed that, because games on fixed odds betting terminals offered poorer odds than their casino equivalents, they were wholly unfair by comparison.  We considered, however, that poorer odds did not equate to unfair gambling and concluded that the description of fixed odds betting terminals as wholly unfair when compared to their casino equivalents was inaccurate and misleading.  

On point (3), the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 19.1 (Other comparisons).  

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form.  We told Prime Table to ensure that future ads clearly identified them as the advertiser.  We also told them not to repeat the claims listed at points 2-4 and advised that they contact the CAP Copy Advice team for guidance with the wording of future ads.  

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)