Luxury Casino Direct Mail Complaint To ASA 0
Posted on 11, September 2014
The Advertising Standard Agency (ASA) this week upheld a complaint about a Direct Mail that was sent by Luxury Casino, a little known mobile casino. The mailshot that was sent contained a letter which was headed ‘Use our money to win over £1 million’. The letter went on to say how there was no risk to your funds and there was an offer of £1,000 free using a bonus code.
The person who complained to the ASA did so because upon trying to claim the offer he found that a deposit was required in order to take the deal. He challenged if the mail received was misleading and the ASA investigated under CAP Codes 3.1, 3.3 and 3.9.
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
Marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.
There was no real response from Luxury Casino but the ASA were assured that the ad would not appear in its current form again. It was found to have breached all of the above CAP Codes.
You can read the full adjudication here.
That said, we visited Luxury Casino today and the homepage looks like this:
That is the advert still appearing in its current form as far as we are concerned so once again, we ask what actual consequence is there to a gambling company (or any who float CAP and BCAP rules)? This is the second example in as many months of companies clearly not adhering to the rulings laid out by the ASA.