ASA rules that KamaGames Ltd (t/a Blackjackist) misled consumers with “no purchases” advertising

On 3 September 2025, the Advertising Standards Authority (“ASA”) upheld a complaint against KamaGames Ltd (t/a Blackjackist) (“Blackjackist”) in relation to a gambling advertisement (the “ad”) for their “Blackjack 21: Blackjackist” game (the “game”) that made a “No purchases” claim. As the game contained in-game purchases, the ASA ruled that the ad amounted to misleading advertising and was in breach of the UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising (“CAP Code”).

Background

On 2 April 2025, an ad was seen on a social media platform for the game with a caption stating “No annoying notifications. No purchases. Just. Good. Old. Blackjack”. A complaint was made to the ASA that, although not necessary in order to play, in-game purchases were present and available whilst playing the game, including random-item purchasing. The complaint alleged that the ad was misleading.

Blackjackist maintained that, although in-game purchases were present, chips were earnt in-game and gifted daily, allowing players to enjoy the full game experience without a need to make any purchases. They said that in-game purchases were an optional addition to the game rather than a necessity, that they did not affect a player’s ability to play or progress within the game, and that the game contained no loot boxes or random-item purchasing mechanisms.

Blackjackist acknowledged CAP guidance that advertisements of games featuring in-game purchases should disclose their presence where those purchases are material to consumer decision-making. Blackjackist contended that the “No purchases” claim in the ad had referred specifically to a game in which in-game purchases were optional and not essential to gameplay.

Blackjackist maintained that the phrase “No purchases” was intended to convey that users could access and enjoy the full game experience without making in-game purchases, and not to imply that purchases were altogether absent.

Blackjackist withdrew the ad.

Decision

The ASA highlighted several factors when making their decision:

• The statement “No purchases” would lead consumers to believe that the game offered no in-game purchasing options at all, and that this was reinforced by the claim appearing alongside claims of “No annoying notifications” and “Just. Good. Old. Blackjack”.
• The game enables users to buy virtual currency such as “chips”, “lottery tickets” and “free spins” with real money, each of which provided rewards that had an element of chance.
• The app store explicitly describes the game as offering in-game purchases, including random-item purchasing.
• Although Blackjackist intended for the ad to merely convey that purchases were optional rather than essential for play – and not suggest they were entirely unavailable – the ASA considered the phrase “No purchases” suggested a complete absence of purchasing opportunities.

CAP guidance states that the existence of in-game purchases, and particularly those that involve random-item purchasing, is a factor likely to be material to a consumer’s decision to play a game. This is of heightened significance for vulnerable individuals. Consequently, advertisers are expected to make it transparent in advertisements where in-game purchasing is present, including loot boxes (where applicable).

The ASA concluded that the ad failed to disclose the presence of in-game and random-item purchases and was therefore misleading. The ASA ruled that the ad was in breach of CAP Code rule 3.1, relating to misleading advertising.

Comment

By drawing a clear line in the sand regarding the necessity for transparent advertising, the ASA has set a firm expectation for all marketers operating in this sector. It is clear that obscuring the true nature of gambling products or misleading consumers about the risks involved (whether intentional or not) will not be tolerated.

This ruling forms part of a more assertive approach taken by the ASA to tackle misleading advertising within the gambling industry. It follows a decision in September 2024, where five companies were found to be in breach of rules 3.1 and 3.3 of the CAP Code for misleading advertising.

The ASA’s ruling reinforces the importance of honesty and transparency in gambling advertising. It sets a precedent that should encourage all marketers to review their practices and prioritise the welfare of consumers, particularly the most vulnerable.

Co-Authored by Helena Thornby, Trainee Solicitor at CMS