UK LEGAL
operator to check for bankruptcy, CCJs and IVAs. However, a clear outcome to that check, in the absence of any other indicators that the customer is at risk of harm, would be unlikely to lead to further action being required. This implies that the Commission does not think that betting £280 in four weeks, in the absence of other indicators, means a customer is at risk of harm.
The purpose of gambling regulation as compared to advertising regulation perhaps sheds some light on the seemingly different view as to what levels of spend risk causing harm. In its July 2026 announcement of the implementation of fi nancial risk assessments, the Commission pointed out that the purpose of the checks is not to determine whether a customer can afford to gamble, but rather whether they are already experiencing fi nancial diffi culties. The amount spent in the context of the customer’s available resources is no longer the focus, rather it is the amount spent in the context of their wider fi nancial circumstances. Based on their individual situation, the operator may need to restrict marketing to a customer and/or limit the amount of money they are able to lose.
In a ruling against BoyleSports published on 29 July 2026, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) demonstrated a somewhat different view of what constitutes a risk of fi nancial harm. The ASA challenged whether a promotion requiring a daily £10 bet over a 4-to-7-day period was socially irresponsible or could lead to fi nancial harm. To receive the highest reward on offer in this promotion, a customer would need to place bets worth at least £10 per day, six days a week for four weeks. The ASA noted that this would “cost at least £280”, although of course that would only be the case if all bets were lost.
The ASA concluded that “the mechanics of the promotion which encouraged frequent and repetitive gambling on four to seven days out of every week, over a four-week period, including the requirement to use the free bets in the subsequent weeks to which they were accumulated, could lead to fi nancial harm”. It is notable that the amounts in question in the promotion are quite a bit lower than those the Gambling Commission has settled on as thresholds for conducting fi nancial checks. Depending on bet outcomes, some customers engaging in the full promotion by betting £280 over the four-week period would trigger a fi nancial vulnerability check, leading the
The ASA, on the other hand, is interested in the amount operators are encouraging customers to gamble, without reference to the circumstances of any individual customer. The ASA did not fi nd, or suggest, that customers taking part in the BoyleSports promotion were spending more than they could afford. The required frequency of gambling also played in part in the ASA’s decision, although BoyleSports submitted evidence that only 0.5% of customers completed all 28 qualifying days and average betting activity only increased marginally during the promotion. An obvious question is whether the Gambling Commission would consider the BoyleSports promotion to be socially irresponsible, in contravention of LCCP requirements. This is something we will only know the answer to if regulatory action is taken and that action leads to a public statement or penalty. What operators should note is that there may be a distinction between the two regulatory approaches, and a promotion that
complies with the LCCP may still be deemed socially irresponsible by the ASA. Previous ASA rulings under the “fi nancial harm” code provision have focussed on advertising that showed gambling attitudes and behaviour that could lead to harm. For example, in April 2026 a ruling against Gecko Play using the line “if you get a bad one, you want a good one even more” was found to encourage repetitive and frequent gambling, even after incurring losses. The BoyleSports ruling sets a new precedent, suggesting that the mechanics of the promotion itself risk being found in breach of the rules, particularly where they involve frequent gambling, even if the Gambling Commission is unlikely to consider the level of gambling involved to present a risk of harm. Signifi cantly, it is now clear that the ASA is not just concerned with the messaging and themes of gambling advertising, but with the structure of promotions themselves.
The practical takeaway from the ASA’s ruling is that a promotion does not actually need to cause fi nancial harm to lead to an adverse ruling; it is suffi cient under the CAP Code that it “could”. This is a test based on perceived risk of harm rather than actual causation, and the ASA’s conclusion that a reward offered for betting £10 on multiple consecutive days could lead to fi nancial harm should be noted. Loyalty schemes, acca bonuses and other mechanics that reward frequent participation may attract scrutiny from the ASA, even where the spend required would not trigger any fi nancial checks under the LCCP. The ruling indicates that the ASA may consider repeated participation in itself a potential driver of fi nancial harm. If so, advertisers will need to scrutinise not only the value of promotional rewards, but also the behavioural incentives that form part of promotions. The key risk is no longer confi ned to advertisements that present gambling as a route to wealth or fi nancial security. Promotional mechanics that encourage customers to maintain betting streaks, return regularly or avoid missing out on rewards may increasingly attract regulatory scrutiny, even where the spend required is relatively modest.
Melanie is a gambling regulatory lawyer with 13 years’ experience in the sector. Melanie advises on all aspects of gambling law including licence applications, compliance, advertising, licence reviews and changes of control. She has acted for a wide range of gambling operators including major online and land-based bookmakers and casinos, B2B game and software suppliers and start-ups. She also frequently advises operators of raffl es, prize competitions, free draws and social gaming products. Melanie has a particular interest in the use of new technology for gambling products and novel product ideas.
AUGUST 2026 19
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56
