Same rule, different outcome: ASA’s contrasting rulings on youth appeal in gambling ads

On 16 July 2025, the Advertising Standards Authority (“ASA”) issued two rulings addressing concerns about gambling adverts potentially having strong appeal to under-18s. One complaint was upheld against Play’n GO Malta Ltd (“Play’n GO”), a casino gaming content provider, about cartoon-style imagery used in their online banner adverts (“the ads”). However, a complaint against Mecca Bingo Ltd (“Mecca”) was not upheld, with the ASA deciding that the use of emojis in a social media post (“the post”) in this instance did not breach advertising rules. The two differing decisions raise important questions as to where the line is drawn for the use of imagery in ads.

Background

For Play’n GO, 3 digital banner ads for promoting the company were seen in April 2025, appearing next to email inboxes accessed by children. The ads each promoted different slot games, using cartoon style imagery such as a superhero Easter Bunny holding a basket of eggs, a cartoon robot DJ at a turntable and 3 anime-style princess characters in colourful costumes. Each ad displayed the Play’n GO logo, an 18+ symbol, and responsible gambling messages. Two complainants challenged the ads, arguing that the animated characters were too appealing to under-18s, and therefore in breach of the UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising (“CAP Code”).

Regarding Mecca Bingo, a complaint was made in May 2025 relating to a post made on their social media platform. The post in question was a film-guessing puzzle, asking users to "NAME THE TOM HANKS FILMS" using emojis as clues. Some emojis included a teddy bear, mermaid and a rocket. The complainant argued that the use of emojis could strongly appeal to under-18s.

Decision

Play’n GO

The ASA ultimately upheld the complaints, concluding that all three ads featured imagery likely to be of strong appeal to under-18s. Play’n GO acknowledged that the images might be appealing to children, but maintained that their ads were distributed through an advertising platform, which ensured gambling ads were only shown on websites that had chosen to display such content. When identified as gambling promotions, these ads were specifically targeted to appropriate platforms. They submitted that users who had visited their website could be retargeted with their ads when visiting other websites, subject to consent being given for such tracking to take place.

Play’n GO submitted that an additional safeguard was in place requiring users to confirm they were of legal gambling age in their respective jurisdiction before accessing their website. They believed that it was possible an adult user may have previously visited their website and provided consent to tracking, with the retargeting of ads later appearing alongside a child’s email account as a result of them using the same device with the same IP address. Finally, the advertising platform stated that even though Play’n GO delivered its games to regulated casino operators, their website was exclusively for entertainment, offering free-to-play games.

In relation to the actual content displayed, the ASA determined that all three pieces of imagery were likely to be of strong appeal to under-18s. The CAP guidance relating to the protection of under-18s from gambling states that “child-oriented cartoon content or animated styles, characters like… princesses… with exaggerated features [and] cultural characters like… the Easter Bunny” are high-risk types of content to be avoided. Considering each piece of imagery individually:

• The imagery of the Easter Bunny holding a basket of eggs was depicted as a superhero. It was deemed that this was likely, for multiple reasons, to be likely to strongly appeal to under 18s;
• The cartoon image of a robot DJ-ing was considered to include an activity that would be likely to appeal to young people;
• Finally, the ad featuring a cartoon princess with colourful costumes and wide eyes was deemed to likely to be of strong appeal to under 18s for multiple reasons.

The ASA considered the representations made by Play’n GO and the advertising platform regarding the safeguards in place to prevent under-18s being exposed to such ads and determined that they were not sufficient to prevent under-18s being entirely excluded from the audience. The ASA stated that the high level of accuracy required for gambling ads had not been met, and as such, the ads breached the following rules of the CAP Code:

• 16.1: 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; and
• 16.3.12: Marketing communications must not portray, condone or encourage gambling behaviour that is socially irresponsible or could lead to financial, social or emotional harm.

Mecca

Turning to the Mecca decision, the ASA did not uphold the complaint. Mecca submitted that the post was created by an external agency 3 years earlier, and updated internal guidance had been issued regarding the use of emojis. They clarified that the post was likely viewed by followers who were actively engaged with the Mecca Bingo (Luton) social media account, which requires users to confirm they are over 18. Mecca also provided data from the relevant social media platform, demonstrating that the majority of their audience was over 25 years old, with only roughly 3% falling within the 18-24 age group.

Regarding the post itself, Mecca deemed neither Tom Hanks, nor the majority of his films, to be of strong appeal to youth culture. They stated that the post was issued for the purpose of community engagement, as opposed to promoting any specific event or promotion. Upon the complaint being made, Mecca deleted the post permanently and stated it would not be used again.

As mentioned above, CAP guidance recommends advertisers avoid including child-oriented cartoon content or animated styles, designating them as high risk. The ASA considered the emojis to have a cartoon-like appearance, and certain emojis were likely to be more associated with younger children’s interests than others – for example, those which depict a teddy bear, a mermaid and a rocket. Nevertheless, they determined that those emojis were no more prominent than others, with most emojis consisting of everyday objects or symbols. This led to the ASA finding that the range and use of emojis were unlikely to have a strong appeal to children or young people by association to youth culture. As such, the complaint was not upheld.

Comment

The timing of the two decisions and their similarities provides an opportunity to draw comparisons between the two. Both depicted animated, cartoon-like content but whilst Mecca’s use of emojis which may appeal to young people was limited, and can be seen to be a collateral risk of using a collection of various emojis, the ads for Play’n GO’s featured content that has been stated within CAP guidance to be high risk.

The context and audience of the respective ads and post will also have likely influenced the ASA’s decision. In the Play’n GO decision, the ASA made direct reference to the safety protocols Play’n GO attempted to rely on in their decision. For Mecca, the ASA did not directly reference the submissions made by Mecca relating to the demographics of users who were following their social media account, nor the measures taken since it was issued, such as permanently deleting the post. Nevertheless, it is likely this had an impact on the overall decision; had the post been made to an audience en masse, with no form of age declaration mechanism, the decision may have gone another way. Similar to another recent decision we’ve considered, it is apparent that the ASA’s decisions are almost certainly influenced by an advertiser’s ability to show sufficient protocols exist, even if the ASA does not directly reference such protocols in their decision.

Co-Authored by James Head, Solicitor Apprentice