Background
This Ruling forms part of a wider piece of work on gambling ads, identified for investigation following complaints received and intelligence gathered by the ASA.
Ad description
Two Instagram posts from Oddschecker, an online betting platform that compared odds from bookmakers, seen in November 2025:
a. The first post on oddscheckertv’s account featured an image of Harry Kane. The caption stated “Harry Kane is the most backed player to win the Ballon d'Or in 2026 (32% of bets) [trophy emoji]".
b. The second post on oddscheckertv’s account featured an image of Erling Haaland. Text stated "NORWAY ARE THE MOST BACKED TO WIN 2026 WC". The caption stated "In the last 24 hours, Norway to win the 2026 World Cup is the most backed bet placed through oddschecker. [...] Their price has shortened to a general 50/1 but there is still 80/1 available with a couple of bookmakers... [eyes emoji]".
Issue
The complainant, a researcher from the University of Bristol, challenged whether the ads breached the Code because they featured individuals who were likely to be of strong appeal to under-18s.
Response
Cyan Blue Odds Ltd t/a Oddschecker believed the posts to be primarily editorial in nature, rather than ads. This was based on the posts’ format, tone and context. They said it was commentary and editorial content on football personalities and events rather than an invitation to gamble. They said that was why they did not include the age disclaimer and social-responsibility message that would ordinarily accompany their direct gambling promotions.
Oddschecker also said that they recognised the heightened risk associated with featuring top-flight footballers, but to mitigate that they implemented account-level measures to restrict access to adults and to make the account’s intended audience clear. The account was set to a minimum age of 18+ and the account bio clearly indicated that the account was for 18+ users.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA first considered whether the post was advertising and therefore fell within the scope of the CAP Code. Paragraph I(h) of the Scope of the Code stated that the Code applied to “advertisements and other marketing communications by or from companies, organisations or sole traders on their own websites, or in other non-paid-for space online under their control, that [were] directly connected with the supply or transfer of goods, services, opportunities and gifts, or which consist[ed] of direct solicitations of donations as part of their own fund-raising activities”.
The post appeared in non-paid-for space online under Oddschecker’s control. We understood that Oddschecker’s service was not itself gambling but placed consumers in a position where they were interacting with gambling services. One post referred to “the most backed player to win the Ballon d'Or in 2026” and to “32% of bets” (ad (a)). The other post stated “the most backed bet placed through oddschecker [...] Their price has shortened to a general 50/1 but there is still 80/1 available with a couple of bookmakers” (ad (b)). We considered the purpose of both posts was to promote the placing of a bet with a bookmaker through Oddschecker. Both posts were therefore ads for Oddschecker’s service, which encouraged gambling, and fell within the scope of the CAP Code.
We then considered whether the ads breached the CAP Code. The Scope of Section 16 (Gambling) of the CAP Code stated that the ASA could draw on the principles established in the rules to assess whether ads for products likely to encourage gambling […] met the standards required by the general social responsibility provisions of the Code (Section 1). The Code also stated that marketing communications for gambling products must not be likely to be of strong appeal to children or young persons, especially by reflecting or being associated with youth culture. They must not include a person or character whose example was likely to be followed by those aged under 18 years or who had strong appeal to those aged under 18.
We considered that it would have been acceptable for gambling ads which featured individuals likely to be of strong appeal to children to appear in a medium where those aged under 18, for all intents and purposes, could have been entirely excluded from the audience. That would apply in circumstances where those who saw the ads had been robustly age-verified as being 18 or older.
Ofcom’s report from May 2025, ‘Children and parents: media use and attitudes’, discussed media use, attitudes and understanding among children in the UK. It stated that 34% of respondents (namely parents) said that their child used the social-media app/site Instagram, but that figure represented the proportion of usage amongst all 3- to 17-year-olds. The figure rose to 52% of 13- to 15-year-olds and 76% of 16- to 17-year-olds. Ofcom research based on a 2025 survey (sample of 1,793 social media users aged 8–17 years) also estimated that 20% of 8- to 17-year-olds with their own profile on an online service had a registered user age of at least 18. Given that evidence, we considered that a large proportion of under-18s used Instagram and that it was likely that there was at least a significant number of children who had not used their real date of birth when signing up.
We understood that age self-declaration was only part of Meta’s age assurance approach and that Instagram began testing the use of AI technology in September 2025 to find suspected teens and proactively place them in Teen Account settings. We considered that, even where Instagram’s AI technology detected accounts belonging to under-18s, self-declared as over-18s, it would take time for the pattern of their online behaviour to emerge, be analysed and classified as under-18, during which they would still be in a position to access 18+ material, including gambling accounts set by advertisers to 18+. This would include ads (a) and (b), despite the account-level measures we understood Oddschecker had implemented.
The CAP Guidance on Gambling and lotteries: protecting under-18s, gave an indication of the risk level of the inclusion of persons in gambling ads. It stated that UK footballers, who played for top clubs, UK national teams or in high-profile competitions, and non-UK “star” footballers, with a significant audience in the UK, were likely to be at high risk of being of strong appeal to under-18s.
Ad (a) featured an image of Harry Kane. The caption stated “Harry Kane is the most backed player to win the Ballon d'Or in 2026". Harry Kane played football for Bayern Munich at the time the ad was seen. He had previously played for Tottenham Hotspur, a Premier League team. He was Tottenham Hotspur’s top goalscorer as well as the all-time second highest scorer in the Premier League. He captained the England national team and was its highest scorer. As a UK footballer, who played for top clubs and captained the England national team, we considered Harry Kane to be a high risk of strong appeal to under-18s.
Ad (b) featured an image of Erling Haaland, who played for Manchester City, a Premier League team. He had set the record for the most goals by a player in a Premier League season and had won the Premier League Golden Boot. Erling Haaland also played for the Norway national team and was the fastest player to reach 50 international goals. He had been named UEFA Men’s Player of the Year. As a non-UK “star” footballer, who played for a Premier League team with a significant audience in the UK, we considered Erling Haaland to be a high risk of strong appeal to under-18s.
For those reasons, we concluded the ads were irresponsible and breached the Code.
The ads breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.3 (Social responsibility).
Action
The ads must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Cyan Blue Odds Ltd t/a Oddschecker not to include a person or character who had strong appeal to those under 18 years of age.
