MISLEADING ADVERTS
It’s not just the Commission and the ASA who are concerned. The Competition and Markets Authority has also conducted an investigation into whether online gambling operators are failing to comply with consumer protection law by not treating customers fairly, and at the end of June announced it is taking enforcement action against a number of online operators in relation to the terms of promotions and pay-outs.
So what does this mean for the gambling industry?
To ensure they are compliant, organisations need to keep the consumer, as well as the detail of the LCCP requirements, front of mind when creating ads or instructing advertising or marketing partners. Operators cannot “turn a blind eye” to their marketing partners’ activities. For example, gambling advertising must not be
likely to appeal to under 18s. In particular operators should not include a child or a young person (under 18) in marketing communications, and no-one who is, or seems to be, under 25 years’ old must be shown gambling or play a significant role in marketing material (with a limited exception for 18-
Susan Biddle Susan provides commercial, IP and IT
advice to a variety of businesses, particularly those in the online/mobile gambling, retail, leisure, technology and media sectors. Clients in the gambling sector include those offering casino games, poker rooms, betting services and bingo, software developers, and those providing essential back office services. She also advises both gambling operators and brand owners on white-labelling arrangements for remote gambling. Her detailed understanding of the particular needs of the gambling sector, together with her long experience of complex IT and commercial projects, is a powerful
24 year olds who are the subject of a bet such as young sports players). Gambling operators must also ensure that they do not place digital advertisements on any websites “providing unauthorised access to copyrighted content”, and must “take all reasonable steps” to ensure that contracted third parties, such as affiliates, also comply with these rules. Operators must be able to terminate the appointment of any affiliate or other marketing agent whom it reasonably believes has failed to comply. With intense competition in the gambling industry,
there may be a temptation for advertising and marketing sometimes to push the boundaries. But operators also have a clearly defined social responsibility, one which the regulators are keen to enforce. Indeed, the Commission has repeatedly said that “mere” compliance with the letter of the LCCP is not sufficient - operators need to be seen to be putting the consumer’s interests first. With operators vying for any advantage, one thing that definitely won’t help is falling foul of the rules around advertising leading to a significant financial penalty.
combination for her clients, who range from listed multi-national companies to early stage new businesses. She has particular experience in advising on the revenue sharing and exclusivity supply arrangements which are often key to contracts in the online/mobile gambling sector. She is an active member of the GB Gambling Commission’s invitation-only industry lawyers group, and is regularly quoted by online gambling publications such as eGaming Review, Gambling Compliance and Online Gambling Lawyer (previously World Online Gambling Law Reports). Susan advises clients in all sectors on prize draws and promotional competitions,
ensuring these fall outside or comply with the relevant gambling regulatory regimes and also comply with advertising codes, data protection legislation and relevant social media requirements. Her experience of the issues enables her to combine a practical commercial approach with the speedy response often required for this advice. She also advises a wide range of businesses on IT and commercial contracts, content supply arrangements, and structuring and implementing contractual and commercial joint ventures and industry-wide co-operation agreements.
Susan is co-author of the IT contracts chapter of the Encyclopaedia of IT Law.
SEPTEMBER 2017 111
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 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118
