Search
Choose a style
Dark
Light
Time to read: 4 min

Play’n GO & Mecca gambling ads complaints heard by ASA

Not allowed sign
The Prince Dream/Shutterstock

Play’n GO Malta has come under scrutiny from the UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) amid wider public concerns about the prevalence of gambling ads in the UK.

The content provider was found to have breached the UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising and Direct & Promotional Marketing (CAP Code) after three of its online banner ads were deemed to have had strong appeal to children.

The ads, which promoted online slot games, were displayed in April 2025 alongside email inboxes, including those accessed by children. 

Amongst them was an Easter-themed cartoon superhero bunny holding a silver egg, a DJ robot and princess characters – each accompanied by 18+ labels and responsible gambling messaging. Two complainants flagged the adverts, and the ASA subsequently launched an investigation under Section 16 of the CAP Code.

Play’n GO fights back

Play’n GO responded to the claims by claiming that the ads reflected the company’s trademarked characters from games designed to appeal to adult players. 

While the group acknowledged the potential for these visuals to attract younger viewers, it maintained that gameplay was tailored for an ‘adult mindset’. 

The firm also highlighted that its ads were served through AdRoll’s platform and were tagged as gambling content to restrict their visibility to age-appropriate audiences. It explained that users who had previously visited the website could be retargeted with ads on other sites, however this only occurred with the user’s consent through a cookie-consent banner.

AdRoll supported Play’n GO’s position, asserting that the ads were not deliberately aimed at under-18s and were delivered via retargeting or lookalike prospecting campaigns based on adult user behaviour.

The ASA disagreed. Referencing the CAP Code’s guidance, the regulator highlighted that cartoon-style imagery carried an extreme risk of appealing to young people, and the fact that the ads appeared alongside children’s email inboxes only magnified this.

The ASA concluded that the adverts were irresponsible, stating: “Play’n GO Malta had not excluded under-18s from the audience with the highest level of accuracy required for gambling ads, the content of which was likely to appeal strongly to that age group.”

The news may be surprising for some as Play’nGO have often taken pride in their stance on responsible gaming, having heavily discouraged the use of bonus buy functions in all of their slot titles.

Meanwhile, the ASA’s ruling against Play’n GO Malta is particularly interesting given the company’s role as a B2B content supplier rather than a direct gambling operator. 

This suggests that B2B brands are not exempt when their marketing reaches a public audience. The case also underscores some pitfalls in programmatic advertising. Play’n GO relied on age-gating and cookie-based retargeting via AdRoll, but as we can see the ads still appeared alongside children’s email inboxes.

Mecca let off

However, in a similar investigation regarding the appeal to under 18’s, the ASA has ruled in favour of Mecca Bingo (Luton) after looking into a Facebook post that used emojis in a film-themed puzzle.

The post, seen in May 2025, challenged its followers to name Tom Hanks films using emoji clues, including an aeroplane, teddy bear, mermaid and rocket. A complaint surfaced that considered if the emojis could appeal strongly to children.

Mecca Bingo argued the post was created in 2022 and targeted adult users, with Meta data revealing that more than 97% of followers were aged over 25. While emojis were used, Mecca said they were part of a wider film quiz and not designed to appeal to under-18s. The post has since been deleted as part of updated social media guidelines.

The ASA agreed, concluding that although some emojis might resemble child-friendly imagery, the usage in this context was unlikely to appeal strongly to under-18s. 

For the most part, the ASA’s tends to have a less favourable view of ads featuring young sports personalities or online influencers like YouTubers, deeming these to be of more appeal to younger people as opposed to those relating to older sports or media personalities.