Coral, Titanbet and bgo hit with ad bans
ASA rules three adverts must not appear again while LeoVegas escapes watchdog's sanctions
Coral, Titanbet and bgo have been hit with advertising bans from the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) this morning following public complaints about their ads.
All three companies were told ads ran over the summer must not be broadcast again, while a LeoVegas advert also received a complaint which the ASA did not uphold.
The Coral dispute centred over a newspaper ad it ran in June which read: ‘ENGLAND TO BEAT RUSSIA WAS 10/11 NOW 50/1. WINNINGS PAID IN CASH’.
The small print stated: “If your selection wins, you will be paid in cash based on the normal price on site and will have your account topped up to reflect the enhanced price in free bets.”
One customer complained the ad suggested winnings would all be paid in cash, while another complained the ad didn’t make clear the offer only lasted one hour from 8-9am.
Both complaints were upheld and Coral was told the ad must not appear again in its current form.
Titanbet was also disciplined for an email about a risk free bet which didn’t clarify the offer only qualified if the bet was placed on an event that finished in the next four days.
A consumer complaint was upheld and Titanbet was warned not to show the ad again and to ensure future promotions didn’t mislead.
Online casino bgo was also hit by an ASA ruling that claimed one of its ads glamorised gambling by showing a man (Verne Troyer) surrounded by casino chips and young women.
The watchdog said: “We considered that the overall impression of the ad was that the manâs wealth was derived from his gambling wins, which viewers could also achieve. We therefore concluded that the ad suggested that gambling could be a way to achieve financial security, which was a breach of the Code.”
Meanwhile, LeoVegas escaped any sanctions for a TV ad showing a man returning to the beach holding two ice creams, to find that his friend had left. The camera cut to the words “Gone to Vegas” written in the sand.
A consumer complained the ad was socially irresponsible, because they believed it portrayed gambling as taking priority in life, but the ASA did not uphold the complaint.