ASA upholds complaints against Midnite gambling ads for implying gambling relieves personal problems

Introduction

On 12 August 2026, the Advertising Standards Authority (“ASA”) upheld complaints against five gambling ads by betting app Midnite, ruling that they suggested gambling could provide an escape from everyday problems. This is arguably a harsh ruling from the ASA showing that they will adopt an extremely broad interpretation of “escape from problems”.

Background

Midnite (operated by Dribble Media Ltd) ran an ad campaign across TV, video-on-demand and radio in April and May 2026, which included characters encountering a rapid succession of minor technological frustrations (e.g., a supermarket scanner failing, a hotel light not working, a vending machine jamming, a key card not opening a door) with a visible pulsing vein on each character’s forehead to show mounting annoyance. Each ad concluded with the line: “We can’t fix the rest, but our betting/casino app is actually pretty good.” 

The ASA received 125 complaints. In substance, complainants argued that the campaign presented gambling as a possible way to escape from personal difficulties or day-to-day stress, and that this risked normalising harmful gambling behaviour.

Midnite defended the campaign, highlighting its “18+” and “GambleAware” messaging and the extensive pre-launch compliance review undertaken, during which the scripts were amended. Clearcast and Radiocentre, which cleared the TV and radio ads respectively, took a similar view: in their opinion, the ads were simply light-hearted comparisons between unreliable everyday technology and Midnite’s dependable app, the frustrations shown were trivial, the characters were calm before gambling and the line “We can’t fix the rest” made clear that Midnite was not offering a solution to those problems.

Decision

The CAP Code and BCAP Code prohibit gambling ads that portray or encourage gambling behaviour that is socially irresponsible or could lead to financial, social or emotional harm, and suggest that gambling could provide an escape from personal problems. 

The ASA assessed the campaign by reference to its overall effect, instead of evaluating each scenario in the ads as a standalone issue. The underlying scenarios were ordinary and relatively low-level annoyances. However, because the ads presented such scenarios in quick succession and, in four ads, reinforced the idea of a build-up of frustration with the visible pulsing vein on the characters’ heads, the ASA considered that they created a cumulative sense of annoyance and stress.

Against that backdrop, the ASA then considered how viewers and listeners were likely to interpret the closing line: “We can’t fix the rest, but our betting/casino app is actually pretty good”. Midnite’s position was that the line was about the app’s quality, reliability and user experience. Whilst the ASA accepted that this was the intended product message, it considered that the creative context gave the line a wider meaning. In particular, by moving from repeated irritations to a positive reference to the gambling app, the ads risked suggesting that the app offered a way to alleviate those frustrations.

The ASA therefore found that the campaign crossed the line from promoting a functional gambling product into implying that gambling could be used as a response to stress or irritation. On that basis, all 125 complaints were upheld. Viewed as a whole, the ASA considered that the ads linked gambling with emotional relief from problems and therefore presented gambling in a socially irresponsible way that could contribute to financial, social or emotional harm.

Comment

This is a particularly harsh ruling from the ASA and will no doubt be a frustrating outcome for the operator and the wider industry, in particular given that the ads were pre-cleared by both Clearcast and Radiocentre. The fact that the ads went through an extensive clearance process and still received an adverse ruling demonstrates that pre-clearance cannot be taken as a guarantee of compliance.

Both Clearcast and Radiocentre assessed the ads and considered them to be comparing the reliability of Midnite’s app with faulty technology encountered in everyday life. The ASA, on the other hand, adopted an extremely broad interpretation of the “escape from problems” rules in BCAP 17.3.2 and CAP 16.3.3. In the ASA’s view, these “problems” are not limited to serious personal difficulties (such as depression or loneliness, which are cited in the rules), as one might expect, but can extend to everyday irritations. Further, the ads were still found non-compliant even though gambling was not directly portrayed as a way to cope with or alleviate stress or frustration.

Brands should exercise caution with any narratives that juxtapose negative emotions and gambling, as even humorous or exaggerated portrayals of minor inconveniences, frustration or stress can be problematic if gambling or gambling-related services are positioned as a comparably more positive experience.

Co-authored by Andrew White, trainee solicitor.