Legal view: Casino games with particular appeal to children

Operators will recall that in October 2017, the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) (supported by the Remote Gambling Association and the Gambling Commission) wrote to gambling operators asking them to immediately remove any adverts or games from their websites, which would particularly appeal to children under 18. The request followed negative press in the Daily Mail and The Times, stating that gambling operators were using child friendly imagery and graphics to lure kids to online gambling. Examples were given of games including “Piggy Payout”, “Pirate Princess” and “Jack and the Beanstalk”, using colours, cartoons, comic book images, child friendly names and references which appealed particularly to under 18’s.

This marketing activity, the letter said, was a clear breach of the CAP Code and operators were required to immediately remove material which was “freely accessible” i.e it could be accessed by children on a gambling website without having to log in.

The advice given by the ASA was good, if a little subjective. However, recent ASA rulings indicate that problems identified are creeping back, mainly because it is difficult to say with absolute certainty what type of images appeal particularly to under 18’s. Take for example the recent ASA ruling on Progress Play Limited. In January 2018, a complaint was made to the ASA by Fairer Gambling (and not a consumer or concerned parent) about three games appearing on the www.m88.com website, “Fairytale Legends Red Riding Hood”, “Fairytale Legends Hansel and Gretel” and “Fairies Forest”.  At the time, these games were visible to all in the website demo mode.

On receipt of the complaint, the operator responded by saying that a third-party software company supplied the games and that they appeared on websites of other gambling operators. It said that the games and graphics had been thoroughly reviewed for appeal to children before launch and where any imagery caused concern, a game would not be launched.

The ASA ruled against the operator on the basis that the games based on fairytales would be popular among young children. Furthermore, the images used, such as fairies and a “heavily stylised” wolf would be popular with young children.  As the games were accessible to the general public (although later only to logged-in customers) the complaint was upheld. A further ruling relating to TGP Europe Limited and child friendly games on its www.fun88.co.uk website follows a similar theme, with a fairy image found to appeal to children, despite the fact that “she was showing a degree of cleavage”.

If you Google the images for these games, you will see why the ASA ruled against Progressplay.  My immediate reaction to any game based on a fairytale is that it would have particular appeal to children. Surely there is some onus on GB licensed software developers to consider these issues when producing games and perhaps the Gambling Commission should turn its attention to games developers and not operators.

However, some important points emerge:

– Just because other people are offering the same games, operators should not assume that they are acceptable. Compliance teams must be far more pro-active about this.

– Err on the side of caution and if in doubt, ask the software developer to confirm that it has considered the issue.

– (Whilst this is not conclusive) ensure that any games that include child friendly imagery are only accessible to logged-in customers.

– Audit publicly accessible parts of gambling websites for any games which may have particular appeal to children (it is possible that these rulings could also extend to games based on e.g. “candy” or children’s games such as “snakes and ladders”)

– Ensure that such games are not marketed externally to under 18’s.

The above article was written by Richard Williams, partner and joint head of the Gambling, Licensing & Regulatory Team at Joelson