The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) investigated and upheld three issues associated with a gambling advertisement of Profit Accumulator.
One complainant addressed the advertising regulatory body in regard to a paid-for post on Facebook and a website for the casino bonus hunting service offered by Profit Accumulator, trading as Bonus Accumulator.
The paid-for Facebook post was seen by the complainant on June 9th, 2020. It featured a video focused on providing an explanation of how the service offered by the company worked. The complainant, however, challenged the video advert for some claims, which, according to them, were socially irresponsible and suggested that bonuses received by casinos could help customers accomplish financial stability.
On the other hand, the complainant also reported that the website www.bonusaccumulator.com that was seen by them on June 14th, 2020, also made some socially irresponsible claims regarding the offered service. According to the complainant, some of these claims were misleading and should be proved by the company with additional evidence.
Profit Accumulator Responds to Criticism to “Casino Bonus Hunting” Service
Profit Accumulator responded to the accusations, explaining that its “casino bonus hunting” was a system that allowed customers to exploit casino bonuses that offered a statistical edge.
The company further noted that the purpose of the aforementioned service was to help consumers take advantage of the free bonuses and promotions offered by online casino operators. According to Profit Accumulator, the testimonial statements used in the paid-for Facebook video ad were not socially irresponsible or materially significant. The company explained that the video advert was only aimed at presenting its casino bonus hunting service as a way of earning extra money and it did not suggest to consumers they should use it as a key source of income.
Furthermore, Profit Accumulator said that customers who used the “risk-free” section of the above-mentioned service could not end up losing money. The company emphasized the fact that the advert never claimed that winning was 100% certain when it comes to gambling and it was also targeting former and current customers, who owned a certain level of knowledge. Apart from that, Profit Accumulator claimed that mathematically, players who used casino bonuses to make enough bets would have an advantage over the relevant casino, which would guarantee them a profit.
The ASA Upholds All Three Issues of the Complaint against Profit Accumulator
The Advertising Standards Authority investigated the three issues included in the complaint. It explained that under the rules of the existing CAP Code, advertisers are not allowed to suggest that customers could use gambling to guarantee a solution to financial concerns. The advertising watchdog also acknowledged that the service offered by Profit Accumulator could not be categorised as gambling itself but it considered that the purpose of the service was to make gambling easier.
According to the regulatory body, part of the first advert’s texting could be interpreted in a way that the gambling system provided by the company could be used as an alternative to employment and, therefore, as a key way to financial stability.
Advertisers in the UK must prepare their marketing communications with a sense of responsibility to their customers and to society, the ASA reminded. That is why the regulatory body considered some of the statements made by the Profit Accumulator could encourage consumers to start a series of bets or similar gambling experience with online casino operators, an activity that could carry the risk of losing a lot of money before even obtaining the bonus offered by the gambling operators.
The ASA confirmed that Profit Accumulator’s service was not itself a licensed gambling operator or a form of gambling but the regulatory body considered that the purpose of the service was to make gambling easier. Considering the fact that the product is associated with using a betting service, the advertising watchdog said there could be a risk for the service’s consumers.
The Advertising Standards Authority concluded that the two ads breached CAP Code rules 1.3, 3.1, and 3.7 regarding social responsibility, misleading advertising, and substantiation, respectively. The regulator also said that the ads must not be released in the same form anymore and told the company to make sure its marketing communications are in line with the CAP Code rules from now on.
- Author
Olivia Cole
