If your marketing team thinks a humorous tone will protect a gambling ad from regulatory action, this ruling is essential reading. The ASA has published its latest ruling against Skill on Net Ltd, trading as Gecko Play, upholding a complaint that a paid-for Instagram ad portrayed, condoned and encouraged gambling behaviour that was socially irresponsible. For operators, the compliance takeaway is clear: humour will never be a defence to irresponsible gambling advertising, and those who rely on it risk upheld complaints, reputational damage, and potential action from the Gambling Commission.

The ad

The ad in question was a paid-for Instagram post promoting Gecko Play’s gambling website. It featured the line “gambling is really like eating pistachios, if you get a good pistachio, you want another good one, if you get a bad one, you want a good one even more”.

The ASA found that it breached CAP Code rules 16.1 and 16.3.1.

Why was the complaint upheld?

Rule 16.1 requires that marketing communications for gambling must be socially responsible, with particular regard to the need to protect children, young persons and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited. Rule 16.3.1 provides that marketing communications must not portray, condone or encourage gambling behaviour that is socially irresponsible or could lead to financial, social or emotional harm.

The ASA’s approach to these provisions is well established: it will consider the totality of the ad’s content, including its tone, imagery, and messaging, to determine whether the overall effect is to portray gambling in a way that could normalise irresponsible behaviour or downplay the associated risks. In the Gecko Play ruling, the ASA found that the messaging would likely be understood by consumers to mean that gambling was compulsive and hard to stop, and that references to wanting a “good one even more” following a “bad one” implied making further bets to secure a win after a loss.

The ASA also considered that the stand-up comedy routine format, accompanied by audience laughter, presented this message in a light-hearted way that trivialised repeated gambling-including gambling again after a loss, rather than encouraging consumers to treat gambling decisions with appropriate caution. Although the ad included “18+”, a responsible gambling message, and the GambleAware logo, these elements did not alter the overall impression, which made light of continued gambling following both wins and losses. This reinforces the ASA’s consistent position that humour or a light-hearted tone will not provide a defence if the underlying message normalises problem gambling behaviour.

The rules on social responsibility

The ASA has previously considered ads by the same operator. In May 2022, the ASA upheld complaints against ads for their PlayOJO brand, finding that a “Hot or Cold” feature gave erroneous perceptions of the extent of a player’s control over games of chance and could encourage socially irresponsible gambling behaviour. Today’s ruling is a reminder of the ASA’s ongoing focus on enforcing the social responsibility provisions.

CAP Code rule 16.1 is a broad, principle-based provision that gives the ASA significant scope to take action against marketing communications that are likely to be considered irresponsible. The accompanying CAP and BCAP guidance on responsibility and problem gambling, updated in November 2021, provides greater detail on the approaches that are likely to fall foul of these rules. Crucially, the guidance makes clear that humour or light-heartedness cannot be used to play down the risks of gambling. Operators should take note that irresponsible content will not be excused simply because it is presented in a comedic or tongue-in-cheek manner.

These principles are well illustrated by several ASA rulings. In one case, an operator’s defence that an ad showing a man distracted by a gambling app while with his girlfriend’s family was “light-hearted” was rejected, as the ASA found the humour relied on gambling taking priority over family life. Similarly, a TV ad was banned for depicting a man on a train platform miming kicking a ball while engrossed in betting, unaware of his surroundings or behaviour the ASA held this amounted to detachment and preoccupation with gambling. More recently, the ASA rejected an operator’s argument that an X post featuring a Premier League footballer was merely “topical football humour” rather than a marketing communication. The clear message: whether an ad is presented as a joke, a meme, or an editorial-style social media post, the ASA will assess its objective purpose and impact.

Key takeaways for operators

Operators should bear in mind the following points arising from this ruling

• Humour and light-heartedness will never excuse advertising content that portrays or condones problem gambling behaviour. The ASA’s position, reinforced by CAP guidance, is that irresponsible content remains irresponsible regardless of the comedic wrapper it comes in.
• Operators with a history of adverse ASA rulings should be especially vigilant. Repeat non-compliance risks escalated sanctions from the Gambling Commission.
• Social media content, including posts that might appear editorial in nature, will be treated as advertising if the ASA considers its purpose is promotional and it is directly connected to the supply of gambling services.
• Internal compliance processes for social media marketing should be robust, with all proposed content reviewed against the CAP Code and the ASA’s responsibility and problem gambling guidance before publication.