Background
This Ruling forms part of a wider piece of work on gambling ads. The ad was identified for investigation following intelligence gathered by our Active Ad Monitoring system, which uses AI to proactively search for online ads that might break the rules.Ad description
A paid-for TikTok ad for Midnite, seen on 3 July 2026, featured a video of a man using a gambling app on his phone. He said, “Another massive World Cup upset. Bet £10 on the big match and get £30 in the free bets. Level up your World Cup with Midnite, get on it.”
Issue
The ASA challenged whether the ad breached the Code on gambling advertising because it featured someone who seemed to be, or who was, under 25 years of age.
Response
Dribble Media Ltd t/a Midnite said the ad had not been sanctioned by them and that the branding used was not theirs despite the word ‘Midnite’ being used. They said they had investigated the matter and found that the ad had been created by an affiliate, Limay Media, who they had not contracted to publish any paid social media posts. Midnite reaffirmed that they had not sanctioned the ad and had since ended their contract with Limay Media. They also said they would remind their affiliates of the need to comply with contractual requirements and the CAP Code.
Limay Media Ltd said the ad had been created using AI and that the individual shown was an AI-generated fictional character, rather than a real person. They said no source images or footage of a real individual had been used and no subsequent alterations had been made to the character. They said the prompt used to generate the ad did not specify the age of the character. Limay Media said the character had been intended to depict an adult. They said there had been no intention to portray a child or young person but acknowledged that because the character was AI-generated there was no underlying real individual whose age could be independently verified.
Limay Media said their usual process for gambling advertising required managerial review and approval before publication, followed by client approval, but that process had not been followed. They said that was an isolated human error and said the ad had remained online for only a few hours before a manager identified the issue and immediately paused it. They apologised for the oversight and said they had since introduced additional safeguards for AI-generated characters used in gambling ads. That included specifying age-related prompts, reviewing characters specifically for perceived age, avoiding styling or facial features that could suggest someone was under 25 years of age and retaining records of the AI-generation and approval process.
Assessment
Upheld
The CAP Code stated that no-one who was, or seemed to be, under 25 years old may be featured gambling or playing a significant role in gambling ads.
An individual was shown throughout the ad on his phone. He engaged with a gambling app and appeared to be excited by the promotional offer. The ASA considered the individual was using the app to gamble and was the central focus of the ad.
We acknowledged Limay Media Ltd’s comments that the individual was an AI-generated fictional character and that no real person had been used to create him, and that he had been intended to depict an adult. We also acknowledged Midnite’s comments that the ad had not been sanctioned by them. However, we noted that the prompt used to generate the ad did not refer to the character’s age or to the age restrictions that applied to gambling advertising. We had therefore seen no evidence that, when generating the character, AI had been prompted to ensure that the character appeared to be aged 25 or over.
We considered the individual had youthful facial features, smooth skin and a boyish hairstyle. He was dressed in a plain grey hoodie, which added to a casual and youthful presentation. We considered his animated expressions and excited manner were also likely to give viewers the impression that he was someone in his late teens or early twenties. There was nothing in his appearance, styling or behaviour that clearly indicated he was older than 25. Although the video used was AI-generated, we considered the overall impression created by the individual depicted was that he seemed to be under 25.
For those reasons, we concluded that the ad featured someone who seemed to be under 25 years of age gambling and playing a significant role and therefore breached the Code.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 16.3 and 16.3.14 (Gambling).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Dribble Media Ltd t/a Midnite and Limay Media Ltd to ensure that their gambling ads did not feature anyone who was, or seemed to be, under 25 years of age gambling or playing a significant role in the ad.
