Complaints relate to something that has happened which may have broken one or more of the gambling or liquor laws that we are able to investigate. The VCGLR regulates organisations or entities that reside within the State of Victoria. Sport Betting Advertising & Marketing Complaint Form The Responsible Marketing Code for Sports Wagering sets an industry standard for the marketing and advertising of sports wagering services. To file a complaint about a particular sports betting advertisement or marketing material subject to this code, please complete the entire form below. You can complain to us about some things you see and hear on radio and TV including gambling advertising. For some complaints you must contact the broadcaster (TV channel) first. The review of the Gambling Act has garnered wide-ranging opinions from across the political spectrum, with diverse stakeholders considering how the UK gambling sector should be governed as well as key areas related to consumer protections, safer gambling, advertising, operator conduct and corporate governance.

Gambling advertising has increased rapidly over the past decade.

While smartphones, apps and social media have multiplied the marketing possibilities, a High Court decision in 2008 also played a major part in the dramatic increase in gambling advertising.

The effect of the ruling was to allow bookmakers to offer bets anywhere in Australia. The ruling also made it clear that states and territories were unlikely to be permitted to ban advertising from other parts of the country. The states and territories with bans, including Victoria, amended their legislation to remove them. The High Court case and subsequent ban removal resulted in a significant rise in the number of gambling companies operating across Australia, and a highly competitive market.

According to Nielsen Media Research, the gambling industry spent $273.2 million on advertising in Australia in 2018, up from $89.7 million in 2011. This excludes sponsorships and in-program content, such as during live sport broadcasts.

In September 2017, the Victorian Government announced a ban on betting advertising on roads and public transport, and within 150 metres of public schools. The laws apply to all static advertising, including on billboards and infrastructure like stations and bridges.

Mass media pokies advertising is also banned in Victoria. However, there is rising community concern about the proliferation of sports betting advertising on broadcast and digital media, particularly its effect on young people. Research findings substantiate this concern.

A Foundation-funded study – Extent of, and children and young people’s exposure to, gambling advertising in sport and non-sport TV – found that in 2016, there was an average of 374 gambling ads a day on Australian free-to-air TV. Two-thirds of these occurred between 6 am and 8:29 pm, when large numbers of young people were watching. There were around four times as many gambling ads an hour in sports programming than in non-sports programming.

374

gambling ads a day on Australian free-to-air TV in 2016.

Download image version of the infographic ' 374

gambling ads a day on Australian free-to-air TV in 2016.

'

x 4

Four times as many gambling ads an hour on free-to-air sports TV than on non-sports TV in 2016.

Download image version of the infographic ' x 4

Four times as many gambling ads an hour on free-to-air sports TV than on non-sports TV in 2016.

'

In Australia, ads for betting products are not permitted during TV programs classified G or lower from 6 to 8.30 am and 4 to 7 pm, or in programs directed at children between 5 am and 8.30 pm. Until 2018, these restrictions excluded sport broadcasts. On 30 March 2018, bans on gambling ads during broadcasts of live sport were introduced between 5 am and 8.30 pm. See the Australian Communications and Media Authority website for more: New gambling ad rules introduced.

On 28 September 2018, new complementary rules were also implemented to restrict gambling advertising during online streaming of live sport between 5 am and 8.30 pm.

The 2016 Foundation-funded study Child and parent recall of gambling sponsorship in Australian sport collected data from children and parents at community sporting venues in New South Wales and Victoria. Three-quarters of 8- to 16-year-olds interviewed could name at least one gambling brand, and one-quarter could name four or more.

The children interviewed also perceived that some forms of marketing were more influential than others, in particular, advertisements featuring celebrities. Funny videos that are not easily recognisable as advertising can also have a strong impact on children.

Another 2016 study reported that 75 per cent of 8- to 16-year-olds thought gambling was a normal or common part of sport. For more on this study, see ‘It's just everywhere!’ Children and parents discuss the marketing of sports wagering in Australia.

‘An eight-year-old watching AFL footy today will have never seen a game without gambling ads.’

1 in 4

* Based on interviews with 152 children aged 8–16 attending community sporting venues

Download image version of the infographic ' 1 in 4 '

31 %

of Victorian secondary school students have gambled.

Download image version of the infographic ' 31 %

of Victorian secondary school students have gambled.

'

Participants in the 2016 studies were able to describe incentives offered by bookmakers, such as ‘bonus bet’ offers and ‘cash back’ deals, which likely contributed to their belief that you could not lose from gambling. This perception is not limited to young people. Incentives or inducements are a form of marketing used to attract new customers or to trigger further gambling. There is also evidence they can lead to people underestimating the risks they are taking.

A 2018 study funded by the Foundation investigated the effects of wagering marketing on vulnerable adults and found that many vulnerable bettors were heavily exposed to wagering marketing, which led them to place bigger and more frequent bets.

Gambling Advertising Complaints Websites

A follow-up study looking at direct texts and emails sent by wagering operators found this direct messaging to be extremely frequent and likely to contribute to risky gambling.

In 2019, the Foundation released research exploring gambling attitudes, behaviour and exposure among Victorian secondary school students, which found 31 per cent had gambled at some point in their lives, and six per cent had gambled in the previous 30 days. Just under three-quarters of all students had been aware of gambling advertisements or promotions on TV in the past month. This exposure was linked to increased likelihood of gambling.

Our Love the Game Sporting Club Program works with local and elite sporting clubs to reduce young people's exposure to sports betting advertising and counter the social norm of gambling in sport.

See some of our sporting hero partners talk about loving the game, not the odds:

Our School Education Program supports secondary school communities to help young people develop informed attitudes to gambling.

Find out more about our work to address the normalisation of gambling at Love the game, not the odds.

Advertising Liability in the Online Gambling Industry

By: Lawrence G. Walters

Signs of a crack down on gambling advertising by United States authorities began to emerge in October, 2003, as word of an investigation into gaming portals and advertisers leaked out. Raymond W. Gruender, Assistant U.S. Attorney General for the Eastern District of Missouri, launched the investigation by issuing numerous subpoenas to media outlets in the wake of his earlier letter to the National Association of Broadcasters, and others, warning that the practice of accepting gambling advertising may constitute aiding and abetting illegal conduct under federal law.[1] The letter further warned that “state and federal laws prohibit the operation of sportsbooks and Internet gambling within the United States, whether or not such operations are based offshore.”[2] Interestingly, the correspondence noted that the volume of online gambling advertisements for offshore sportsbooks and online casinos is “troubling” because it misleads the public into concluding that such gambling activity is legal when, in the opinion of the Justice Department, it is not.[3] The letter cast itself in terms of a “public service announcement,” however it was clearly designed to intimidate advertising venues into ceasing all further online gambling advertising.

The subpoenas were designed primarily to acquire evidence relating to commercial and financial information about the advertisement of Internet casinos and sportsbooks. The subpoena also called for the operators to turn over any notes or correspondence relating to the legality of accepting advertising from Internet casinos and sportsbooks.[4] Although the full extent of the investigation has yet to be disclosed or uncovered, it appears that many Websites, media outlets and major sports information networks have all been served with subpoenas.[5] The industry panic generated by news of the investigation caused at least one major online gaming conference scheduled for November, 2003, in Orlando, Florida, to be canceled.[6] Now that the initial shock of this apparently widespread investigation begins to wear off, the industry must take a hard look at the law and the politics supporting this investigation, and develop a coherent and unified response thereto.

Advertising, Aiding & Abetting

Although no federal law specifically prohibits online gambling advertising, the government has hinted that it may pursue charges against those who accept such advertising under an “aiding and abetting” theory. The offense of “aiding and abetting” is defined under Title 18 U.S.C. § 2, which provides in pertinent part: “a) whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.” That offense occurs when a defendant willfully associates himself with the criminal venture and willfully participates in it as something he wished to bring about.[7] In order to be responsible for aiding and abetting, the accused individual must have had general awareness that his role was part of overall improper/illegal activity, and must have knowingly and substantially assisted violating a law.[8] Depending on the specific subsection of the federal aiding and abetting statute utilized by a prosecutor in a criminal case, the government would either be required to prove that another person committed a crime and that the defendant assisted in the commission of such offense[9] or that the defendant willfully caused another person to commit an act which would have been a crime had the defendant committed it himself.[10] In the later circumstance, the government need not prove that someone else committed any crime.[11]

In order for the government to obtain a conviction for aiding and abetting, it must therefore, prove that the defendant aided or abetted another in violating some substantive criminal offense. In other words, aiding and abetting does not occur in a vacuum, but only in relation to some other criminal law violation. Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Malcolm claims that both state and federal laws prohibit online gambling in the United States. However, no specific federal statue is listed as authority for such contention.[12] The most commonly cited basis for claiming that online gambling is illegal in the United States is the “Wire Act,” 18 U.S.C. § 1084(b). This law prohibits the transmission of bets in interstate or foreign commerce, with certain exceptions, safe harbors, and limitations.[13] The applicability of the Wire Act to Internet-based gambling is in doubt, however, due to conflicting federal court decisions.[14] Therefore, the legal viability of any aiding and abetting theory used against a gambling advertiser would be necessarily dependent on the applicability of the substantive offense charged; i.e. the Wire Act. If the Wire Act does not apply, the aiding and abetting charge fails. Moreover, it is important to note that advertising, alone, has rarely been found to be a sufficient basis for supporting a charge of criminal aiding and abetting under federal law.[15] The United States Supreme Court has not chosen to resolve the conflict between the federal circuit courts on this issue, and thus the merits of the government’s contention remains questionable. Although the government may attempt to apply other federal statutes to take the place of the Wire Act as a substantive offense, such as the Wagering Paraphernalia Act or the Travel Act, such theories would be long shots at best and highly dependent on the specific facts of a particular advertising relationship. Moreover, case law is equally uncertain as to the applicability of the Travel Act or the Wagering Paraphernalia Act in the virtual gaming realm. The uncertainty over substantive federal prohibition on Internet gambling may soon be resolved if the “Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act” (H.R. 21) or the substantially similar Senate version (S. 627) become law. The United States Congress has been considering some form of online gambling prohibition for years now, however, this effort appears to be gathering steam. Another basis for potential advertiser liability could be a violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act which prevents false or misleading advertising. It has been held that the constitutional guarantee of free speech does not protect such misleading advertising.[16] Government officials may be setting the stage for such a claim in light of the reference to the allegedly misleading nature of online gambling advertising contained in Gruender’s warning letter. Federal Trade Commission violations have commonly resulted in civil or administrative proceedings as opposed to criminal prosecution. However, the nature of the pending investigation and the tone of the warning letter appear to indicate that the government has something more serious in mind. To summarize, the government’s aiding and abetting theory as a basis to hold advertisers liable for acceptance of online gambling advertising is on shaky ground and dependent on the ultimate applicability of the underlying offense that the government claims the advertiser to have aided or abetted. The state of the law is exceedingly unclear on the substantive regulations relating to online gambling, thus rendering the aiding and abetting theory novel, at best.

The First Amendment & Commercial Speech

Considering the potential applicability of the aiding and abetting offense is only half the story. Irrespective of whether such offense can be made to apply to online gambling advertising, any defendant selected for prosecution under this theory would be certain to mount a First Amendment defense focusing on the right to disseminate commercial speech. In the United States, advertisers enjoy some degree of constitutional protection under the First Amendment since they are engaged in the publication of commercial speech.[17] In fact, the United States Supreme Court has held that the government cannot regulate speech about gambling to the same degree it can regulate gambling itself.[18] Moreover, advertisers may be allowed to advertise conduct that is illegal in the geographic location of the target audience, so long as that conduct is legal where it actually takes place.[19] All of this begs the question of whether, or more appropriately where, online gambling is legal? Such nuances will be difficult to discern since, from a technological standpoint, it is difficult to even conclusively determine where the gambling transactions actually take place. Does the “bet” occur at the moment the key stroke is made, or when it is received by the server, or when processed by the offshore gambling entity? This legal/technological quagmire has thus far dissuaded most federal prosecutors in the United States from taking on the Internet gambling industry through widespread prosecution. However, gambling advertisers are now apparently seen as an easier target.

Most of those media outlets targeted by the recent federal investigation are large, mainstream entities, with much to lose both in terms of revenue and public opinion, if they are viewed as participating in illegal activity. Most also have alternative sources of advertising revenue, thereby encouraging the outlets to eliminate the online gambling advertising entirely, and seek to replace it with other subjects. While eliminating the problem by substituting the advertisers may appear to be an attractive “quick fix” for the media outlets, that action does not resolve the larger and more important constitutional concerns. Can United States authorities threaten to prosecute media outlets with “aiding and abetting” or other vicarious liability offenses each time the government dislikes the nature of the services being advertised? Such an intimidation campaign results in what lawyers call the “chilling effect” on protected speech. In other words, those companies or individuals threatened with potential prosecution are more likely to self-censor instead of risking potential conviction which, in the gambling arena, can result in substantial penalties. The online gaming industry cannot likely rely upon the media outlets to fight this battle, as it belongs to the industry, itself. A unified industry response is therefore necessary to preserve the commercial speech rights applicable to online gambling advertising.

The Industry Response