ASA gives green signal to Poshbingo.com TV ad

A ruling by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has gone in favour of Poshbingo for its television commercial.

A viewer objected that the ad was misleading, because it did not make clear that it was necessary for players to deposit and spend £20 before they could withdraw any money from their account.

Spacebar Media, responding on behalf of Poshbingo.com, clarified that the ad clearly stated that consumers must deposit and spend £10 to receive £20, for free, to spend on bingo games; the total amount to spend would therefore be £30.

The ASA noted that the ad did not state that players could withdraw money from their account having deposited and spent only £10 and stated “Join Poshbingo.com and get twenty pounds free play”.

“ We considered that made clear that players would receive £20 worth of game play only. Viewers were unlikely to be misled into believing that they could withdraw that £20,” stated the ASA.

It added that the requirement to deposit and spend £20 before withdrawing money was not relevant to the promotion but was a general condition applied to all first time withdrawals from Poshbingo.

“ We also noted the ad stated ” … Terms & conditions apply … “, which we considered was sufficient to alert viewers to the fact that restrictions applied. We considered viewers were unlikely to be misled into thinking that they could withdraw money having taken advantage of the free play on offer and concluded that the ad was not misleading,” stated the ASA.

Swedish case goes in Ladbrokes’ favour

Ladbrokes recently won a case against the Swedish state monopoly, Svenska Spel.

Svenska Spel filed a law suit against Ladbrokes last year for breach of trademark laws in connection with the Ladbrokes advertising campaign “Swedish games with English odds”. The Swedish company claimed that Ladbrokes had misused the Svenska Spel trademark and that only the state monopoly can use the term “Swedish” and “games” for commercial use in advertising and marketing. The Market Court in Sweden ruled that Ladbrokes did not violate the trademark act of Sweden.

Christopher Bell, chief executive of Ladbrokes, stated that this case means that Swedish monopolies cannot extend their power to monopolising language.

For its part, Ladbrokes countered with a law suit against Swedish game (Svenska Spel) for violation of the Marketing Act, for the use of terms such as “Svenska Spel is a world leader in responsible gaming” and “the most effective age verification online.” The Swedish Marketing Court ruled in favour of Ladbrokes and Svenska Spel faces a penalty of SEK 750,000 if these statements are used in future marketing activities.

The ruling, according to Ladbrokes, also noted that the company did not sufficiently manage to demonstrate that the use of statements such as “same game” and “major gains” in the Ladbrokes ad campaign 2008 was relevant to the facts, and therefore contrary to the Marketing Act.

Ladbrokes has been quite critical of Swedish state monopoly laws and actions that restrict competition and choice. Late last year, Ladbrokes had described a report issued by the Swedish National Gambling Consultation as protectionist and anti-competitive. It mentioned that none of the EU principles of proportionality or free and fair competition across border were taken into account in the paper – it is more monopoly, not less. The objective is to protect Government revenues and penalise competitors, it had stated.

ECJ delivers a critical judgment

The European Union’s highest court recently ruled that a Portuguese state-run charity’s gambling monopoly is legal if it aims to combat criminal activity.

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) rendered its judgment in a case involving bwin and the Portuguese football league versus the Portuguese monopolist Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa (Santa Casa).

Santa Casa claimed that bwin’s sponsorship agreement with the Portuguese professional football league and accompanying advertising activities were illegal because of Santa Casa’s monopoly in providing on and offline lottery and betting services in Portugal.

According to the ECJ, the Portuguese monopoly on the Internet may comply with Community law under certain conditions, but restrictions imposed by a Member State “must be suitable for achieving the objective or objectives invoked by the Member State concerned, and they must not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives. Lastly, in any event, those restrictions must be applied without discrimination.”

The Direccao do Departamento de Jogos da Santa Casa de Misericórdia de Lisboa, a Portuguese state charity that has a broad national monopoly covering electronic betting and lotteries on television, radio and the Internet, fined the Liga €75,000 ($107,565) and Bwin €74,500 for infringing on its monopoly, according to Dow Jones. Liga and Bwin appealed these fines before a Portuguese court, arguing that EU rules ensure companies can provide goods and services freely across the bloc’s borders. The court hearing the case decided to ask the ECJ to give its interpretation on the application of EU law. The Luxembourg court ruled that free movement of goods and services can be restricted if the public interest is at stake.

A major setback for online gaming

The online betting industry has suffered a setback as the European Union said that member states could be allowed to ban gambling websites if its intention was to stop crime.

In a recent ruling, The European Court of Justice (ECJ) decided that a Portuguese state-run charity’s gambling monopoly is legal if it aims to combat criminal activity.

Referring to the recent case, which involved bwin and the Portuguese football league versus the Portuguese monopolist Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa, Sigrid Ligné, secretary general of the European Gambling and Betting Association (EGBA), said given the stringent anti-fraud regulations applicable to EU licensed operators which ensure a high level of integrity, transparency and traceability over online gaming transactions, “we do not believe those conditions are met”.

“Several jurisdictions in the EU already prove that it is possible to guarantee a high level of consumer protection and have a well regulated and competitive online gaming market at the same time,” said Ligné.

According to the Association, the judgment must also be seen in the context of the increasing number of Member States that are now in the process of rethinking and redrafting their gaming legislation. As has been obvious for all other consumer markets before, none of the Member States currently drafting legislation has chosen a monopoly model to regulate this modern Internet based market.

Overall, the sentiments have been fairly negative.

“It’s a bit disappointing because the hope was that the European Commission and the European Court of Justice were actually in favour of markets opening up,” said James Hollins, analyst of gambling stocks at Daniel Stewart & Company, according to Reuters. “It looks like (the ruling) would strengthen the hand of countries who want to continue to protect state monopolies, which include Portugal or Germany.”

Internet-based gambling operators are currently involved in a number of court cases and regulatory disputes over access to markets in Europe. The industry feels the recent verdict may adversely impact the pending cases.

Camelot asked to discontinue its email campaign

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) recently directed Camelot Group to drop its email advertising campaign for the National Lottery.

The Authority upheld a complaint that Camelot encouraged excessive gambling although it rejected the suggesting it implied gambling was indispensable.

According to Camelot, the ad was one of a series of e-mails which were sent to National Lottery players who had opted to receive marketing communications.

The advertiser explained that the ad did not imply that gambling was indispensable and reasoned that it merely suggested that, because of the advantages of playing the Lottery interactively, a good excuse was needed by recipients if they were to miss out. Also, it added that the ad was designed to stress some of the advantages of playing the Lottery interactively and mentioned features like automated ticket checking, advance play and win notifications. The ad did not encourage excessive play but provided information that helped recipients decide if they wanted to play Lottery games interactively.

But the ASA considered that the ad focused on the benefits of playing the Lottery interactively and invited recipients to use their interactive account repeatedly by stating “The more you play the more likely you are to win”.

It noted the ad suggested that recipients had a higher chance of winning if they bought multiple lines, across the numerous Lottery games on both the Wednesday and Saturday weekly draws, and concluded that, by referring to the greater chance of winning resulting from multiple entries, the ad encouraged repeated and potentially excessive gambling.