Home » Archive » Recent Articles:

Interview with Santiago Asensi, Partner, Asensi Abogados

January 22, 2009 2009

Time to tackle ‘crime scenarios’ in online gambling

Bulletbusiness.com’s Legal Gaming Special

Few months ago, it was being pointed out that Spain was in midst of discussions about how to regulate the online gambling sector at a national level and in accordance with the EU law and principles.

Assessing the situation as of today, Santiago Asensi, Partner, Asensi Abogados, says in accordance with the Law 56/07 on measures to develop the Information Society, Spain is preparing a new gaming law, which would be totally focused on the online market.

“The Sectorial Gaming Commission, the body that groups all the Spanish authorities in charge of the gaming regulations, will meet in the first quarter of 2009 to review the first draft of the Bill. This draft is being prepared by LAE (The State Lotteries Monopoly) and shortly will be circulated between the different administrations,” said Asensi, who is scheduled to speak during Bulletbusiness’ 3rd Legal Gaming in Europe Summit 2009, to be held in London on 26-27 January.

Asensi also spoke about some of the key issues related to Spain. Excerpts:

On governments losing out on tax revenues and players being unprotected: The fact that the governments have not showed interest in regulating this market but rather putting barriers in order to protect their monopolies has damaged the three principal agents of this business:

i) Consumers that in many occasions have not found the due protection brought by consumers associations and courts where to find their rights covered;

ii) Licenced operators missing out on opportunities to launch their products in many markets; and

iii) Governments loosing the opportunity to obtain income from this industry.

I would say that the governments have damaged the whole gaming sector by restricting and putting barriers to online gaming. To restrict the market to their own monopolies under the argument of consumer protection is a poor and a vague excuse that nobody who is in this industry can believe in.

On how can operators benefit in the time to come: I like to be an optimist and I do believe that this is just a question of time. Most of the sectors of the gaming industry keep growing wealthy even in times of crisis. If we take a look at the legal situation in the past and we compare it with the current one, there should be no doubt that there have been many achievements.

Unfortunately, this is not applicable to all jurisdictions yet but the balance must be considered as positive.

On key to opening up markets being as much about taxation as regulation: My view is that sooner than later this scenario will change or, it would be better to say that it will keep changing. It’s changing in countries like France or Spain and this will also happen with the rest of the countries of the EU.

Furthermore, European jurisdictions should learn from the UK regulation, white-listing those jurisdictions that reach the proper levels of technical standards.

On cooperation among national gaming regulators: Let me be ironic: it’s great to know that our politicians are about to reach the conclusion that this would be the best way to combat all type of crimes that can be related to this industry. If you want to prevent thefts in a dark street, the best measure to take will be always to set up lights in that street instead of increasing the penalty for theft. And this simple example is absolutely applicable to prevent crime scenarios in the online industry.

Role of Bullet Business and Gaminglaw.eu partnership going forward: I believe this is a great opportunity for both parties in order to establish a strong collaboration, which will benefit clients of both entities and the end users of Gaminglaw.eu. This partnership has been built on the basis of many years of experience and the knowledge of the industry. The result must be always good.

We have put our best efforts looking forward that this idea works and I do not find a single reason why it shouldn’t.

Ritesh Gupta

Bulletbusiness.com

3rd Legal Gaming in Europe Summit 2009

Bulletbusiness’ 3rd Legal Gaming in Europe Summit 2009 is scheduled to take place in London on 26-27 January.

For more information visit: http://www.bulletbusiness.com/legaleurope09/agenda.shtml

or

Contact:

Ben Satchwell at +44207 375 7163 or email ben@bulletbusiness.com

Enforceability of the internet prohibition in section 4 subsection 4 ITG 2008

January 22, 2009 2009

published TIME Law News 1/2009, Hambach & Hambach Law Firm

With the State Treaty on Gambling1 (Glücksspielstaatsvertrag – ITG 2008), aimed at maintaining the gambling monopoly for lotteries and sports bets, the German Federal States decided to take radical measures against new forms of products. Pursuant to section 4 subsection 4 ITG 2008, the operation and brokering of public gambling on the internet is therefore prohibited2. In the meantime, it has also become apparent that the Federal States’ supervisory authorities are looking for new ways of actually implementing this prohibition in 2009.


Importance of internet sales for state-run and private providers

The prohibition primarily affects private providers, commercial lottery brokers such as Tipp24 as well as German and foreign providers and brokers of sports bets. The state’s sales of lotteries and sports bets, however, continue to be handled through the dense network of lottery counters without any problems. State-run lottery providers had only in recent years recognised the possibilities of internet sales, and some of them made considerable investments in attractive internet offers. As an example, I would like to refer to the setting-up of the Bavarian internet offers, which the annual report 2007 issued by the Bavarian audit court described as follows:

“In 2000, the SLV (state lottery administration) initially began offering the Oddset bets via the internet (…). From the end of May 2001 onwards, the internet offers were extended to Lotto, Glücksspirale, Spiel 77, Super 6, and also to Keno. (…). Subsequently, the SLV continuously developed and improved its sales via the internet: Additional personnel were employed specifically for the gaming offers on the internet, and several million Euros were invested in software and hardware.

(…). Although the operation of games on the internet has in the meantime been ceased, these resources (technical equipment and personnel) continue to be maintained3.”

Some state-run providers have spared neither cost nor effort, even during the transition period of only one year4, to fulfil the strict requirements resulting from section 25 subsection 6 No. 1 ITG 2008 . This can, for instance, be seen in the fact that KJM issued a positive evaluation of the lottery identification system (Lotto-Identverfahren) incl. Lotto-Stick for Nordwest Lotto and Toto Hamburg, as well as of the text message PIN system for utilisation by closed groups of users for Lotto Bayern


Blocking orders against access providers

From 2009 onwards, the intention is to strictly monitor the internet prohibition. Recent press releases show that foreign internet offers are now meant to be blocked by corresponding orders against the access providers5. In some cases, access to the offers could already be blocked by taking action against the Admin-C or the registrar6.

What remains unconsidered in the context of the actions taken by the gambling supervisory authorities are the concerns which had already been raised during the discussions regarding blocking orders for websites with child-pornographic content. In a study commissioned by the KJM, Prof. Sieber, for instance, came to the following conclusion: “The present legal situation (…) does not allow any blocking measures which would interfere with the secrecy of telecommunications as provided for in Art. 10 GG (German Constitution), section 88 TKG (German Telecommunications Act)7.” Prof. Pfitzmann examined the technical side for KJM and came to the result: “Summing up, one can state that blocking on the internet is feasible in principle, however, it is often connected with considerable (and usually unforeseeable) side-effects8.”

Borders of the Federal States on the internet?

In addition to this very critical evaluation of the legal and technical feasibility of blocking orders against access providers, all providers, supervisory authorities and courts will also have to face the problem of the implementation in the internet area of prohibition orders specific for the individual Federal States. Inconsistent court decisions provide proof of the difficulty of the technical and legal evaluation of the situation9.

Even though the provision in section 9 subsection 1 sentence 4 ITG 2008 would allow the Federal States’ supervisory authorities to take coordinated action, individual state authorities frequently issue prohibition orders with legal effect only for the Federal State concerned. For instance, providers of internet poker and sports bets received prohibition orders from the Bezirksregierung (district government) in Düsseldorf, regarding participants in the Federal State of North-Rhine Westphalia only. In order to fulfil the authority’s order, the provider would therefore have to be able to exclude all participants located in the Federal State concerned10. As the decisive factor is the current location of the player, not the place of residence, a one-time inquiry regarding the place of residence would not be sufficient. Rather, it would be necessary to enquire about the player’s current location each time he logs onto the gambling offers, and the reply would have to be checked by geo-localisation. When examining the justification of the prohibition order, it must therefore be evaluated whether the provider, using state-of-the-art technology, is able to determine the present location of the participant in the game. In a study11, TÜV Rheinland discussed this question in detail, after Prof. Hoeren, in a study12 commissioned by the Deutsche Lotto-Block, changed his previously voiced opinion13.

Summing up, it can be stated that the localisation of the participant in the game is determined by the location of dial-in. However, this is not necessarily close to his actual current location. However, according to various examinations, even the determination of the point of access with the required exactness of 90 % is only possible for a larger radius14, so that a restriction of the participants from specific Federal States cannot be carried out with ultimate reliability15. This means that the prohibition order would impose upon the internet provider the problem of violating this order through no fault of his. However, it is the authority’s obligation to show the recipient of an order a way to fulfil his obligations16.


Conclusion

The internet prohibition of gambling raises many questions:

First of all, a conflict of generations becomes apparent, as the internet prohibition is only justified by an unwarranted and diffuse fear of the medium internet: “The player’s anonymity and the lack of any kind of social control make it seem necessary, under the aspect of preventing gambling addiction, to question the sales channel “internet”, for the area beyond sports betting.” Contrary to this, today’s generation is well aware of the fact that the average internet user is not anonymous, and that addiction prevention can be realised much more effectively by the provider of internet games than, for instance, on location at a casino where an individual’s playing behaviour cannot be recorded in a traceable way. Furthermore, the implementation of the prohibition beyond Germany’s borders requires censorship measures which usually are applied by countries such as China and North Korea, but are alien to a democratic and free society.

State supervision of gambling takes the easy way out in this context: by delegating its task of enforcing an internet prohibition to the internet providers, without providing them with feasible and effective action proposals for the implementation. The risk of hitting legal internet services as well due to imprecise blocking measures, and of thus exposing oneself to incalculable risks of damage claims, is simultaneously passed on to the internet providers in an inadmissible way.
In order to safeguard state fiscal income, even concerns which are decisive in the discussions regarding blocking orders against websites with child-pornographic content are dismissed in the context of the planned restrictions of the internet in the area of gambling. It must therefore be anticipated that the gambling supervisory authorities, driven by the intention of realising income, will power past the initiative by the German Federal Government regarding the blocking of child pornography sites, which was based on reason and technical and legal know-how, and will make it permanently impossible to responsibly deal with the medium internet due to its inadmissible and infeasible “actionism”.

Susanna Münstermann, Associate
Hambach & Hambach
1 Staatsvertrag zum Glücksspielwesen in Deutschland (State Treaty on Gambling in Germany), Gesetz- und Verordnungsblatt (law gazette) for the Federal State of Hesse, Part I 20.12.2007, p. 841.
2 Due to the legislative intent of the GlüStV, this is to fulfil the requirements set by the BVerfG (German Constitutional Court) and by addiction experts, who held that the interests of youth and player protection would be jeopardised by internet offers.
3 Bayerischer Oberster Rechnungshof (Bavarian high audit court), Jahresbericht (annual report) 2007, http://www.orh.bayern.de On the development of internet business, see data overview on page 90, recently: increase from 162 000 (2005) to 245 000 (2006) registered game participants.
4 In spite of contradicting allegations in the media, the transition period only applied to operators of lotteries and brokers of lotteries. Provided that strict requirements were fulfilled, operators and brokers were allowed to continue their internet sales up until 31 Dec. 2008, with permission by the responsible supervisory authorities of the Federal State concerned.
5 Compare press release in Focus Online: http://www.focus.de/digital/internet/internet-gluecksspielseiten-droht-sperrung_aid_351940.html.
6 Compare press release in Heise Online: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/Bezirksregierung-Duesseldorf-geht-gegen-Gluecksspielseiten-vor–/meldung/120252.
7 Sieber/Nolde, Sperrverfügungen im Internet (blocking orders on the internet), April 2008, p. 223 accessible at www.kjm-online.de
8 Pfitzmann/Köpsell/Kriegelstein, Sperrverfügungen gegen Access Provider (blocking orders against access providers), April 2008, p. 73 accessible at www.kjm-online.de.
9 The internet prohibition cannot be technically enforced: OVG (Higher Administrative Court) of Thuringia, resolution dated 3.12.2008, ref. 3 EO565/07; VGH (Higher Administrative Court) of Bavaria, resolution dated 7.5.2007, ref. 24 CS 07.10; VGH (Higher Administrative Court) of Hesse, resolution dated 29.10.2007, ref. 7 GT 53/07; however: VGH (Higher Administrative Court) of Bavaria, resolution dated 20.11.2008 ref. 10 CS 08.2399 – advertising prohibition with restriction as to region can be imposed – however, retaining the principles of the decision dated 7. 5. 2007; VGH (Higher Administrative Court) of Baden-Württemberg, resolution dated 5.11.2007, ref. 6 S 2223/07
10 Pursuant to section 3 subsection 4 GlüStV, a game of chance is operated or brokered at the location where the  player is provided with the opportunity of participating.
11 TÜV Rheinland Secure iT, short study on the topic geo-localisation of IP hosts, 12.8.2008, not published.
12 Hoeren, Zoning und Geolocation, MMR 2007, p. 4.
13 Hoeren, Geolokalisation und Glücksspielrecht (geo-location and gambling law), dated 24.4.2008 (ZfWG 2008, 229).
14 Between 250 and 500 km, according to a study by Gueye, Uhlig and Fdida (Investigating the Imprecision of IP Block-Based Geolocation, 2007) and a study for the IEEE-Institute (Constrained-Based Geolocation of Internet Hosts, 2006).
15 For self-test, with display of dial-in node: http://www.meineip.de/.
16 VGH (Higher Administrative Court) of Bavaria, resolution dated 7.5.2007, ref. 24 CS 07.10.

The spirits that I called. Balance of one year Interstate Treaty on Gambling

January 14, 2009 2009

published in TIME Law News 1/2009, Hambach & Hambach Law Firm

A year-end retrospective of the State Treaty on Gambling from the point of view of legal economics

A commentary by lawyer Dr. Wulf Hambach, Founding Partner, Law Firm Hambach & Hambach

Year after year at Christmastime, the movie “Scrooged”, based on Charles Dickens’ story “A Christmas Carol”, flickers across the screens in Germany. In this US comedy, the unscrupulous and stubborn TV producer Frank (Bill Murray), is visited in succession by three ghosts – the ghosts of the past, present and future. The three mirrors Frank is shown by the ghosts do not show anything positive, and at the end of the film they bring him to repentance.

Let us now take the liberty of holding a mirror to the much-discussed State Treaty on Gambling and its advocates, and of taking stock.

The mirror of the past:

Before the State Treaty on Gambling took effect, in particular the 16 lottery companies of the Federal States rendered homage to the new regulation as the bringer of salvation. The website Lotto.de, for instance, stated during the ratification phase of the State Treaty on Gambling in 2007:

“With the State Treaty on Gambling, politicians consistently implement the requirements set in the fundamental judgment by the Bundesverfassungsgericht (German Constitutional Court) on 28 March 2006. The regulation of gambling in Germany thus is strictly oriented to the objective of player protection. The companies of the Deutsche Lotto- und Totoblock welcome the fact that the heads of government of the Federal States consistently move forward on this path. The State Treaty has become effective as of 1 January 2008, and leads to legal certainty (compare http://www.lotto.de/kommerzialisierung3.html.).“

On the other hand, substantial losses in turnover for the state-run providers already began to show before the new State Treaty became effective. On 19 October 2007, the newspaper Berliner Morgenpost, for instance, published the headline “Berlins Bundesliga-Sportclubs sind massiv gefährdet“ (“Berlin’s Bundesliga clubs are in serious danger”), and summarised the Federal States’ intention of implementing the State Treaty as follows:

“The political fight of the German Federal States against gambling addiction, and the private competition for the state monopolies on the gambling market, will prove to be expensive for the Berlin budget, and will – sooner or later – jeopardise the financing of various sports clubs, art events and social projects.”

The mirror of the present:

After a period of only one year “the welcome” extended to the State Treaty on gambling obviously seems to turn into regret. For instance, Hans-Peter Schössler, head of Lotto Rheinland-Pfalz, against the background of expected turnover reductions for Lotto Rheinland-Pfalz of approx. 50 million Euro, demanded “a “clean competition” between private and state-run gambling providers.” (see http://www.az-badkreuznach.de/region/regional.php?oid=4308080). In other words: “let’s get rid of the State Treaty on Gambling and bring in a liberal system.” Schössler’s indirect demand for a reasonable competition model in the area of gambling is understandable, not only in view of the decline in turnover (according to the Deutsche Lottoverband (German lottery association), the Federal States may face reductions in income due to the State Treaty on Gambling amounting to 5.5 billion Euro by 2011, see: http://www.welt.de/wams_print/article2874493/Das-Spiel-verdorben.html; also on this topic: “Taking stock of legislative activities – ½ year of the State Treaty on Gambling: a financial and legal blessing or a Waterloo for the German Federal States and the charities?”

The EU Commission is also known to lack enthusiasm in this German legislation.

Brussels objects to re-drafting of German betting monopoly“ was the headline in the newspaper ”DIE WELT“ in a report on 28 November 2008, which continues as follows:

“The controversial State Treaty on Gambling has caused a great deal of annoyance in Brussels. The EU Commission’s legal service issued a remarkably clear statement against the State Treaty on Gambling, in a German case before the European Court of Justice (ECJ). A brief to the ECJ which has been made available to “DIE WELT” states that thus, German politics in the area of gambling are fundamentally inconsistent, so that the criteria of coherence and consistency, determined by the European Courts, are not being fulfilled. This open criticism on the European level shows that the Treaty, effective only since the beginning of 2008, and therefore the safeguarding of the monopoly of state-run providers of gambling, is on unsteady ground.”

The mentioned brief by the Commission to the ECJ relates to proceedings conducted by the Gibraltarian online gambling provider Carmen Media (represented by the law firm Hambach & Hambach) before the Verwaltungsgericht (VG – Administrative Court) of the German Federal State of Schleswig-Holstein. Carmen Media’s objective: To obtain recognition of its valid EU gambling licence against the background of the fact that the State Treaty on Gambling violates Community Law, and is therefore not applicable. At the beginning of 2008, the VG decided to suspend the proceedings and to refer the decisive questions regarding European law to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling.

Looking at the submission decision by the VG of Schleswig Holstein, it becomes clear that the Commission shares the VG’s opinion. During the hearing in January 2008, the presiding judge expressed her legal opinion that a state monopoly in the area of sports bets can only be justified with the objective of combating gambling addiction if all legal regulations and actual implementations by a Member state in the entire gambling market – not only the provisions on which the sports betting and lottery monopoly are based – form a systematic and consistent set of regulations. In this context, the judge made a very graphic comparison: If a state prohibition or monopoly on wine and beer was justified with a reference to the dangers of alcoholism, it would hardly be understandable if hard liquors continued to be freely available (see also PM von Hambach & Hambach vom 31.1.2008. This graphic comparison has its reasons: In 2007, the ECJ decided in the Rosengren case on the Swedish monopoly on the sale of alcohol that a state monopoly cannot be justified by the combat against addiction if the sales quantities of the addictive substances are unlimited (judgment dated 5.6.2007, in case C-170 (Rosengren, ECR 2007, I-4071), par. 44-47). Transferring this to “lottery addiction” (if such a thing existed), which would not be directly linked to a substance, this would mean that the state would have to introduce a quantity restriction on the addictive product “lottery”. A person potentially in danger of “lottery addiction” would, for instance, only be allowed to fill in one lottery ticket per week, and would be blocked from taking part in the other lottery draws. The participation in state lotteries without a quantity restriction, as practised today, would therefore be illegal.

Coming back to the EU Commission: In the mentioned statement, it reaches the conclusion that the State Treaty on Gambling violates higher-ranking Community law due to the incoherence of the German gambling regulations. Should the ECJ follow this opinion, German courts would have to cease application of the regulations which violate European law. In this case, the VG in Schleswig Holstein would be forced to decide on the validity of Carmen Media’s EU licence in Germany, without taking into consideration the prohibition of private providers resulting from the State Treaty on Gambling. In paragraph 43 of the brief concerned, the Commission furthermore suggests to the ECJ that mere discretionary decisions by an authority would also violate community law if all licensing prerequisites were fulfilled. This means that if the VG after the ECJ decision came to the conclusion that the regulations restrict the freedom to provide services as set out in Art. 49 EC Treaty in an unjustified manner – for instance because the monopoly system in Germany in itself is inconsistent, i.e. incoherent – it could either determine that Carmen Media may directly operate in Germany on the basis of its Gibraltarian licence, or that the discretion to be exercised by the gambling supervisory authority (in this case: the Ministry of the Interior of Schleswig Holstein), would be reduced to zero if all licensing prerequisites were fulfilled, which would mean that Carmen Media could commence legal operations in Schleswig Holstein. This inevitably means that the current flood of lawsuits against the gambling monopoly would be decided in favour of the private providers, which would overthrow the monopoly for good.

Should politicians in the German Federal States continue to stubbornly adhere to the State Treaty on Gambling, in spite of the fact that some lottery companies start to show better judgment and in spite of the current legal chaos, there will be a show down before the ECJ and, after that, before the VG of Schleswig Holstein. In an article published recently in the magazine Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht, “Gelten die Grundfreiheiten auch für Geld- und Glücksspiele?” (“Do the fundamental freedoms also apply to games for money and games of chance?”), we deal with a Portuguese case submitted to the ECJ, which is in a more advanced stage than the German cases regarding time and procedure. Can conclusions be drawn from this case for the German cases?

Prior to this, we shall deal with a topic which already formed the centre of criticism by the EU Commission in the infringement proceedings initiated against Germany at the beginning of 2008 (on this topic, see: http://www.betting-law.de/cms/cms/front_content.php?idart=373): The question regarding the enforceability of the internet prohibition in section 4 subsection 4 GlüStV. In the letter of formal notice (infringement proceedings No. 2007/4866), the Commission states as follows: “The  prohibition of games of chance on the internet is not suitable in order to reach the intended objective, as it is almost impossible for the German authorities to enforce such prohibition.

Is this regulation a “weak link” in the State Treaty on Gambling? If this is the case, the spirits called by the advocates of the State Treaty on Gambling with its controversial passing at the end of 2007, will soon put an end to the nightmare, and will call a new spirit: horrendous damage claims by private gambling providers (such as Carmen Media) against the Federal States and thus against the already hard battered taxpayer.

The mirror of the future:

A monitored – i.e. not insidious – liberalisation of the (internet) gambling market (see also “Proposed Legislative Restructuring of Gaming Law, based on the Sports Betting Regulation”) has already become reality in Italy and Spain, and will soon also be introduced in France (see the following articles by our Italian, Spanish and French cooperation partners). This will not only provide the players or consumers with the opportunity of choosing from a variety of strictly supervised, legal online gambling offers, but will also – as was the case in Italy – fill the state’s OWN (!) coffers with money from gambling. This money is not only urgently needed for the long overdue establishment of an effective nationwide and structured system for the combat of addiction and crime in the area of (online) gambling, but is also required to ensure the continued support of charitable sports and cultural events in the future.

Czech firms win permission for online gambling

January 12, 2009 2009

It is being reported that the Czech Republic government has allowed a select few domestic online gambling operators to commence operations within the country.

According to local media, the Ministry of Finance recently granted licences to operate Internet gambling to five domestic companies, Sazka, Fortuna, Chance, Synot Tip and Tipsport. It is being said that all five operators were required to have a network of land-based outlets where customers need to register. The companies will be subject to regulation under the Gaming Act and will pay administrative fees, state supervision fees and part of their proceeds will be used for good causes. The server where the betting takes place must be located in the Czech Republic, with the software used to be subject to certification. The operators are also obliged to allow state access to the system.

“We are sad and bitter that foreign Internet betting companies are allowed to operate in the Czech Republic without any control. There is no legal restriction. So basically they operate in this country illegally. So we want to have the same opportunities as foreign companies,” a spokesperson from Fortuna told radio.cz.

“If someone wants to bet through Fortuna on Internet, they must register in a bricks and mortar office and show their ID. Only then they are allowed to play. We don’t accept credit cards but only regular payment cards because we don’t support gambling and gamblers and we don’t want people to become addicted to internet betting. That’s something foreign companies don’t do.”

Ladbrokes’ online casino ad campaign fails to get clearance

January 12, 2009 2009

Ladbrokes breached advertising standards in television commercials for its online casino as the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) felt that the adverts

The complaints were levelled against two ads. The first commercial showed a diver who attached raw bacon and sausages to his wet suit and leapt into shark-infested water dressed in a seal costume. A character at the end of the clip said: “All we could bury was his flipper.”

The second advertisement showed a sky diver jumping out of a plane using an empty crisp packet as a parachute.

Both clips finished with: “If only he’d seen ladbrokecasino.com it would have quenched his thrill buds.”

The complainant said the ads: portrayed gambling in a context of toughness or linked it to risk taking and reckless behaviour; portrayed, condoned or encouraged people to gamble in a way that was socially irresponsible and could lead to financial harm; exploited the susceptibilities and aspirations of vulnerable people.

The ASA banned the ads on the first ground.

While the ASA noted the ads were humorous and showed the protagonists engaging in ridiculous and extreme behaviour; it considered that the activities shown in the ads would be unlikely to be seen as realistic or aspirational by viewers.

“We further noted Ladbroke and M&C Saatchi’s argument that the ads were cautionary tales and encouraged caution and moderation, not risk taking and reckless behaviour. We nevertheless considered that the overall context of the ads, including the claim If only had seen ladbrokescasino.com it would have quenched his thrill buds, portrayed gambling in a context of toughness, and linked it to excessive risk taking and reckless behaviour. Although we acknowledged that the scenarios shown in the ads were intended to be cautionary tales, we concluded that they breached the Code by portraying gambling in a context of toughness and linking it to recklessness,” stated the ASA.

Ladbrokes said in a statement the advertisements were light-hearted and humorous, and it would appeal against the decision.

Tim Duffy, UK chief executive of M&C Saatchi, said if the appeal were unsuccessful, the ruling could present serious challenges for creating gambling campaigns.

Legal Gaming in Europe Summit 2013 – Summary Day 1

Legal Gaming in Europe Summit 2013 Day 1 Summary Video







Video: International Gaming Law Summit 2011 Highlights

International Gaming Law Summit 2011 Highlights Video



Copyright: http://www.calvinayre.com

To get the latest news follow us on

twitterlinkedintwitterlinkedin

Archives