Complaint: 17/281

Television

Details

Complainants
advertisers
Jackpot City
Year
2017
Media
Television
Product
Entertainment
Clauses
Decision
No Grounds to Proceed
ASA Links
Website Listing
Decision Document

Document

2017_28100.png

COMPLAINT NUMBER 17/281

COMPLAINANT M. Rait ADVERTISER Jackpot City ADVERTISEMENT Television DATE OF MEETING 9 October 2017

OUTCOME No Grounds to Proceed


Advertisement: The television advertisement for Jackpot City promoted online slots games. The advertisement said, in part "play for free at jackpotcity.net and get treated as a VIP 24/7... play today at jackpotcity.net."

The Chair ruled there were no grounds for the complaint to proceed.

Complainant, M. Rait, said: "My understanding of New Zealand law is that only the Lotteries Commission and TAB are allowed to advertise gambling in New Zealand. The advert from memory made no reference to whether free or paid. While their website says free, I'm dubious that is their business model. Why is a commercial operator advertising online gambling games on prime time network television?"

The relevant provisions were Code of Ethics - Basic Principle 4, Rule 2; Code for

Advertising Gaming and Gambling - Principle 1, Principle 2

The Chair noted the Complainant's concerns that the advertisement promoted online

gambling which was illegal.

Regarding the Complainant's concerns the advertisement was in breach of the law, the Chair said the Advertising Standards Authority is a self-regulatory organisation and its jurisdiction is limited to the content and placement of advertisements and compliance with the Advertising Codes of Practice. Matters relating to legal compliance should be raised with the agencies responsible for enforcing the relevant legislation.

The Chair noted the television advertisement for the 'jackpotcity' website clearly referred to

'playing for free' and noted it stated on the website the games were free. The Chair said the free games offered were clearly themed on casino slot machines but this in itself was not socially irresponsible.

The Chair said the advertisement did offer free games in line with the claim made in the television advertisement and it was not misleading. The Chair ruled the advertisement was not in breach of the Code of Ethics or the Code for Advertising Gaming and Gambling and had been prepared with a high standard of social responsibility.

Accordingly, the Chair ruled there was no apparent breach of the Advertising Codes and the complaint had no grounds to proceed.

Chai r' s Ruling: Complaint No Grounds to Proceed