The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) published a new ruling on Coral Interactive misleading advertisement content case, with the most recent ruling set to replace the one published on July 26th, 2017. The ruling still upholds the complaints against the company, but the UK gambling advertising regulator made a revision of the assessment’s wording.
As previously reported by Casino Guardian, on July 26th 2017 the ASA rebuked the online gaming operators Coral Interactive and LeoVegas for misleading advertisement content. The ruling of the Advertising Standards Authority came after a number of complainants challenged the advertising content in question as harmful and irresponsible.
Complaints and Coral Interactive Response
The TV commercial of Coral Interactive, which was challenged by two complainants, was seen on April 16, 2017. The advert displayed videos of a number of professional players being engaged in a game of football, with the voice-over suggesting that football fans could make a choice between simply watching their favourite game on TV or play for real money on a game’s outcome by using the sportsbook option of Coral Interactive.
The individuals claimed that the ad was irresponsible and harmful, and shared that the voice-over’s phrasing could make the impression that gambling was better than watching football.
The online gambling operator opposed to the accusations that the advert was irresponsible and harmful to customers. According to Coral Interactive, the voice-over used in the TV commercial was simply asking viewers whether they were interested in making a real-money bet as well as watching the football match. The company disagreed with the claims that the advert’s tone was too aggressively promoting the gambling options provided by the operator, and said that it were the customers who decided whether to place a bet or not.
The non-governmental organisation which is responsible for pre-approving most British television adverts, Clearcast, also disagreed with the complaints filed against the TV commercial of Coral Interactive. According to Clearcast, no implications that viewers should stop watching the sport and place a bet were made. They share their belief that the advert only encouraged potential customers to make a bet in case they wanted to.
Back in July, the ASA upheld the complaints against Coral Interactive, and so did in its latest ruling on the case. According to the Advertising Standards Authority, the overall tone of the advert could make implication that gambling was more exciting for viewers than simply watching the game.
The gambling advertising regulator further explained that the commercial’s voice-over tone was not aggressively promoting the gambling options available at Coral Interactive. Still, certain aspects of the advert could leave the impression that gambling could lead to personal success, according to the ASA.
After investigating the case, the Advertising Standards Authority concluded that the TV commercial was likely to make the impression that customers could enhance their personal qualities by gambling. The gambling advertising authority found that the Coral Interactive ad breached the BCAP Code rules 1.2 concerning Social Responsibility and 17.3.6 and 17.3.5 regarding Gambling.
The ASA ruled that the TV advert must not be aired in its current form any more. The regulatory body also reminded the operator to make sure that its advertising must be in line with the requirements of responsible attitude towards gambling.