The ASA has seen concerns about gambling-related non-paid for social media content increase in recent years, particularly as operators increasingly adopt “content marketing” approaches. “Content marketing” is a term often used to describe posts published by operators that contain editorial-style content, like commentary or opinions on recent events, or more abstract humour, such as ‘memes’ and other irreverent takes on current sporting news, where there are no direct product references, calls to action or links to operator websites.
In our 2022 remit statement on this issue, it is made clear that the CAP Code applies to marketing communications in marketers’ own online spaces where content can reasonably be considered to be “selling something”, even if it is presented in an editorial or entertainment-led format.
The statement highlights that social media posts by licensed gambling operators will generally fall within scope if they are directly connected to their services or intended to stimulate consumer interest in them. While there is an exclusion for genuinely editorial content — such as independent commentary or opinion — a lot of content marketing does not qualify for that exemption. Posts can be considered ads within the ASA’s remit where they include direct references to gambling products, odds or related services, but also where they include indirect references, such as by seeking to generate interest in events that the operator offers bets on (without directly referencing that fact).
In the remit statement, the Gambling Commission also confirm that where social media content does not fall within the ASA’s remit, the principles included in the CAP Code should still be applied as if it was explicitly covered. This includes the requirements around ‘strong appeal’. Operators therefore need to make sure that all of their social media content is not likely to be of strong appeal to under- 18s, regardless of whether it’s regulated by the ASA or not.
The ASA’s recent rulings against Cyan Blue Odds Ltd (t/a Oddschecker) and Betway Ltd both involved social media posts that were investigated on the basis of their appeal to under-18s, and usefully bear out some of the principles referenced above. For both rulings, the ASA first considered if the content was advertising and subject to the CAP Code.
In the Oddschecker ruling, two Instagram posts featured footballers Harry Kane and Erling Haaland. The ASA concluded they fell within its remit as marketing communications because they appeared in non-paid-for space under the advertiser’s control and included clear references to betting activity, such as odds and volumes of bets.
Once within remit, the ASA found the ads breached social responsibility rules by featuring individuals with strong appeal to under-18s, reinforcing the strict application of youth protection standards.
The Betway ruling also concerned a social media post that fell within ASA remit as a marketing communication under the advertiser’s control. However, the complaint was not upheld because the ASA assessed that the content—featuring retired footballer Thierry Henry—did not have strong appeal to under-18s.
Taken together, the rulings demonstrate how the ASA’s remit operates in practice. Content published by gambling operators on their own social media channels is likely to be regulated where it promotes or is connected to their services, regardless of whether it is framed as editorial.
Whether or not the content is in scope, Gambling Commission rules mean that CAP Code principles need to be adhered to. Careful assessment of compliance with the CAP Code is therefore essential when developing any kind of gambling-related social media content.
More on
-
Keep up to date
Sign up to our rulings, newsletters and emargoed access for Press. Subscribe now.
