ASA bans PlayOJO’s “hot or cold” advertising following investigation
Two of the three complaints upheld against the SkillOnNet-owned operator over gambler’s fallacy-led materials
PlayOJO will have to pull two of its adverts for its “hot or cold” feature after the ASA concluded its investigation into the operator’s marketing materials.
Three TV adverts, a web page and a blog post, were under all investigation by the ASA.
The original complaint was filed against the firm last year, and it was reported in April that the complaint would be upheld.
There were three complaints against PlayOJO; two were based on whether or not the adverts misleadingly implied that the “hot or cold” feature could predict future successes and could irresponsibly lead to financial, social or emotional harm.
The other complaint challenged whether the adverts irresponsibly exploited cultural beliefs or traditions about gambling or luck.
The ASA upheld the first two complaints as it found that the adverts contained various elements that gave the impression that the “hot or cold” feature had some form of effect on a player’s chance of winning.
The ASA did not uphold the third complaint as it felt that the use of tarot cards in the TV advert would not influence someone who believed in tarot any more than those who didn’t.
Due to this conclusion, the regulator has told PlayOJO that these adverts must not appear again. In addition, the parent company SkillOnNet was told that future adverts must not imply that using the “hot or cold” feature can predict or influence a player’s success.
The ads also must not encourage socially irresponsible gambling that could lead to financial, social or emotional harm.
A comment from a spokesperson at PlayOJO said: “Naturally we are disappointed that the ASA upheld complaints on 2 out of the 3 CAP/BCAP codes we were challenged on due to certain marketing of our “hot and cold” feature, which is a modern adaptation of showing the run of recent results on a roulette table.
“Although we fully respect the expertise and judgement of the ASA and are currently re-working the marketing, we don’t think that our marketing was socially irresponsible and could lead to financial and emotional harm, nor did it give the impression that a games past performance can affect future results, and it was of course never our intention to give any such impression.”