888 hauled over the coals for promo tactics

[jetset]

Perhaps a timely reminder to operators that promotional offers should be accompanied by proper T&Cs


ASA CENSURES CASSAVA SOCIAL AD

Significant conditions to be made clear

The UK Advertising Standards Authority has adjudicated an advert for the website Lucky Ace Poker.com that appeared on a social networking website, ruling that it may not appear again in its current form.

The Cassava Enterprises t/a LuckyAcePoker.com promoted ad was challenged for its claim that said "Join Now & Get GBP 10 free to play with!" by a complainant who said he and his partner had both signed up for the offer but had not received the advertised bonus.

Cassava said the offer did not apply to customers already holding accounts with other brands operated by itself and that the bonus was not awarded because the complainant already held an account at another Cassava brand.

The ASA ruled the advert misleading and instructed Lucky Ace Poker to ensure they made clear the significant conditions of future promotions.

 

[RikkiGT-R]

This is something 888.com are notorious for isn't it? Good to see this judgement.

 

[maxd]

This is something 888.com are notorious for isn't it?

Yes. Penalties -- which may include confiscations and lock-outs -- if you're a member at any of their other casinos or white-labels but they refuse to identify what those other properties are. Some they'll disclose, others they won't, but the penalties are applicable nevertheless. Said penalties are applied as and when it suits them.

 

[Nifty29]

Yes. Penalties -- which may include confiscations and lock-outs -- if you're a member at any of their other casinos or white-labels but they refuse to identify what those other properties are. Some they'll disclose, others they won't, but the penalties are applicable nevertheless. Said penalties are applied as and when it suits them.

Yes and it stinks.

I'm always a stickler for the rules, but only those rules which are ABLE to be followed. It is almost impossible to avoid signing up at another Cassava property when they refuse (deliberately I assume) to list them anywhere to allow the player to cross-check.

IMO anyone who plays with 888/Cassava has rocks in their heads.

 

[maxd]

... It is almost impossible to avoid signing up at another Cassava property when they refuse (deliberately I assume) to list them anywhere to allow the player to cross-check.

Yes, quite deliberately. When they were making their bid for Accred status it came up that we asked for a list of the white-labels and all other Cassava properties. They promptly gave us a list which was obviously incomplete. When we asked them for the full and proper list they said "we'll think about it". In the end our efforts on their behalf died, in part because they refused to respond to that simple request.

From what I've seen this appears to be a deliberate tactic on their part: cast a wide net with all their spamming, allow players to entrap themselves into Terms violations re: the undisclosed white-labels etc, and then play the "Terms violation" card if and when it is convenient (profitable?) to do so. Very difficult for any one player to fight back against, especially since they refuse to discuss player issues and insist that all player complaints be deferred to eCOGRA or Old / Expired Link.

I respectfully suggest that there are very good reasons for the following Casinomeister Warnings:
Casino848 and Cassava whitelabels are off the grid.
Cassava Enterprises refuses to discuss player issues
888 and related properties are ignoring player complaints
SpinWin Casino: no pay, CS on auto-responder.

FWIW this is all old news. I've been in this business since before Cassava really got rolling and the player side of it has always pretty much been the same story: take what you get and talk to the hand if you don't like it. A lot of players are obviously fine with that, go figure.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Perhaps a timely reminder to operators that promotional offers should be accompanied by proper T&Cs


ASA CENSURES CASSAVA SOCIAL AD

Significant conditions to be made clear

The UK Advertising Standards Authority has adjudicated an advert for the website Lucky Ace Poker.com that appeared on a social networking website, ruling that it may not appear again in its current form.

The Cassava Enterprises t/a LuckyAcePoker.com promoted ad was challenged for its claim that said "Join Now & Get GBP 10 free to play with!" by a complainant who said he and his partner had both signed up for the offer but had not received the advertised bonus.

Cassava said the offer did not apply to customers already holding accounts with other brands operated by itself and that the bonus was not awarded because the complainant already held an account at another Cassava brand.

The ASA ruled the advert misleading and instructed Lucky Ace Poker to ensure they made clear the significant conditions of future promotions.

This is the drawback with the ASA. They can censure away and create bad PR, but there are no sharp teeth. This means that Cassava can duck and dive their way through these violations simply by creating a different ad that STILL fails to make things any clearer.

Of more significance is the "must make significant conditions clearer". In order to be clear enough, they would have to provide a means for players to identify whether they are eligible under the rules, which means providing a look-up table for all the white labels.

Now, Cassava are not the only one who can "game" the system and get away with it. WE can too, and now we have this ASA ruling, WE can entrap CASSAVA into repeatedly violating ASA's underlying principles that governed the making of this ruling.

How, complain about EVERY ad that announces a freebie, but that does not allow players to know properly whether they are eligible. It would just need some UK players who have dormant accounts at what Cassava will not admit are connected properties, and try to get the advertised bonus. When the bonus is refused on the grounds of connected properties, send a complaint off to the ASA.

If the ASA repeatedly get complaints and become convinced that Cassava are merely "gaming the system" rather than making a genuine effort to stay within the ASA guidelines, the issue may be referred to the OFT, which DOES have the sharp teeth needed to make life uncomfortable for Cassava.

If things are allowed to reach this stage, it's not just Cassava that would be in trouble, it would be the failure of the GRA and eCogra to regulate this type of behaviour out of their licensees and members that would be looked at. It could ultimately mean Cassava failing to get it's UK license in a couple of years, and finding itself frozen out of one of it's major markets.

This ruling could apply to an item of spam that fails to make the significant conditions clear, and I am sure EVERYBODY here has plenty of work for the ASA in their spam folders.

If Cassava are told not to send the emails in the same form again, they are almost certain to violate the rulings given the size and underhandedness of their email marketing departments. Compared to the spam, the social ads are crystal clear about the conditions.

 

[jetset]

They have run afoul of the Italians this week as well - the first to be hammered under the new advertising restrictions:

888 ITALY CRITICISED FOR ONLINE SLOTS ADVERT

Television spot censured

The online gambling group Cassava-888 is not having a good week in its promotional activities. The British Advertising Standards Authority ordered the withdrawal of a Cassava online casino advert that did not adequately inform punters of the conditions of a free offer, and the company has become the first to feel the wrath of the Italian advertising authorities.

Italy's Advertising Self-Regulatory Court hauled 888 up on its television advert, which featured an online slots fan being showered with gold coins after a lucky late night hit. Despite the customary caveats in the presentation, the court rather tenuously associated this with an inappropriate comparison of gambling to financial planning.

888 still awaits the nature of its punishment, which has presumably already included taking the offending advert down. The regulations have provision for heavy fines against offenders.

This is the first prosecution under new Italian advertising restrictions introduced at the beginning of this year, with operators cautiously feeling their way around some not-very-specific guidelines.

This online gambling group must spend considerable amounts of money on marketing, because despite all the evidence pointing to an almost total lack of respect for the player, the company continues to deliver good business performance results, and is presently working away at getting into the evolving US online gambling market.

 

[vinylweatherman]

They have run afoul of the Italians this week as well - the first to be hammered under the new advertising restrictions:

888 ITALY CRITICISED FOR ONLINE SLOTS ADVERT

Television spot censured

The online gambling group Cassava-888 is not having a good week in its promotional activities. The British Advertising Standards Authority ordered the withdrawal of a Cassava online casino advert that did not adequately inform punters of the conditions of a free offer, and the company has become the first to feel the wrath of the Italian advertising authorities.

Italy's Advertising Self-Regulatory Court hauled 888 up on its television advert, which featured an online slots fan being showered with gold coins after a lucky late night hit. Despite the customary caveats in the presentation, the court rather tenuously associated this with an inappropriate comparison of gambling to financial planning.

888 still awaits the nature of its punishment, which has presumably already included taking the offending advert down. The regulations have provision for heavy fines against offenders.

This is the first prosecution under new Italian advertising restrictions introduced at the beginning of this year, with operators cautiously feeling their way around some not-very-specific guidelines.

This online gambling group must spend considerable amounts of money on marketing, because despite all the evidence pointing to an almost total lack of respect for the player, the company continues to deliver good business performance results, and is presently working away at getting into the evolving US online gambling market.

This was just bad luck, but it shows just how strict the Italian regulator is likely to be on such adverts in general, and this could catch out many operators. Unlike the ASA, this lot seem to have teeth with the prospect of "heavy fines" for those caught flouting the rules.

I hope operators who have yet to fall foul are taking note and ensuring they don't make the mistakes 888 are making.

None of this is going to look good to the Americans either, where the strong opposition to legalisation are bound to pounce on any negative regulatory censures to argue their case for continued prohibition.

It seems that to steer clear of an Italian censure, the prospect of winning big cannot be a feature of the advert. Instead, they will have to focus on those core values, the ones they always point out to "bonus abusers", which is that they are providing "entertainment", rather than an opportunity to challenge and beat the house through clever play just within the rules.

I can also see bonus bans falling foul of the ASA, as many are marketed as a "right" that lasts either for a specific amount of time, or even the life of the account. If a player was drawn by advertising that promised "regular weekly offers for as long as you are a member", a bonus ban for getting ahead (all too common) would make the advert misleading unless the criteria for attracting a bonus ban were made clear (which generally they are not).

 

[chayton]

Too bad the ASA can't step in on all the affiliate sites that have those same banners. I may be wrong but I'm guessing that a lot more traffic comes from banner farms than from social media and tv.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Too bad the ASA can't step in on all the affiliate sites that have those same banners. I may be wrong but I'm guessing that a lot more traffic comes from banner farms than from social media and tv.

They can.

It depends on how they see it from a legal viewpoint. Is the website merely publishing an ad prepared by the operator, or has it made it's own ad.

It is similar to a newspaper publishing an ad. Take the social ad as an example. The ASA did not go after the publisher, the social media site, but the company for which the advertisement was presented. They may take the same view with any affiliate site publishing the same or similar banner, go after the operator being promoted, rather than the affiliate who's site published it.

Before the internet, newspapers and magazines were seen merely as publishers, the ad itself was the responsibility of the company being promoted, and it was they that suffered any sanctions if the ad was deemed to be against the rules.


However, the ASA would need a complaint in order to trigger an action. Someone has to have been mislead by an ad before it can be looked into. Rarely though, the ASA does look into ads that they feel need looking into even if there have been no complaints. Often, this is because they are asked to pre approve an ad, or a particular company repeatedly breaks the rules and is being more closely monitored.

Policing internet ads is in it's infancy, so I expect the ASA are currently only investigating after having received a complaint.

 

[chayton]

I don't much about the ASA, it's a UK based entity, right?

A couple months ago I read an article about how a mascara ad was pulled from UK television (I think the one with Mick Jagger's daughter) because she was advertising the mascara but also wearing fake eyelashes so it went against the rules about truth in advertising or some such. I thought it was interesting but had to laugh because if they did that here, all the cosmetic companies would be screwed and have to pull all their ads. Not to mention the beer companies!

Anyhow sorry for the derail - the point I was trying to make is that it seems like the UK may be a little more stringent about that kind of thing than the rest of the world, but can they do anything about ads or media outside their jurisdiction?