Unibet and William Hill are caught in a new regulatory case with the national media regulator. According to complaints, the companies have been breaching law in the country by not providing the necessary level of anti-gambling protection and breaching specific regulatory measures.
William Hill and Unibet at It Again
The United Kingdom’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has been contacted by citizens in separate cases, who complained about a number of public statements made by popular betting agencies William Hill and Unibet.
According to these complaints, certain representatives of the companies have been making comments that directly flout established norms and regulations.
The first red flag was raised by a citizen who responded to a Tweet made on October 27 by one Nicky Henderson who suggested in a Tweet sharing that his Unibet blog was available for interested parties to read. The individual who lodged the first signal was convinced that Unibet had control over the account and a final say in what was published.
Nicky Henderson Stable Tour – Day 5⃣
Find someone that talks about you the way Nicky talks about Tent! 🤣
Click the link below for more on:
🐴 Buveur D'Air
🐴 Call Me Lord
🐴 We Have A Dream
🐴 Soul Emotion
— Unibet Racing (@UnibetRacing) November 8, 2018
This led the individual to turn to ASA, claiming that the actions defied existing regulation as established by the Committees of Advertising Practice (CAP).
Unibet addressed the complaint explaining that while Mr. Henderson, a racetrack horse trainer, was indeed a Unibet’s ambassador, tasked with promoting the brand, his actions and statements were his own and the company had no say in what gets published.
As such, Unibet is not responsible for any of the content that makes it online via Mr. Henderson’s account, Unibet continued. However, ASA agreed that the advertisement had been in violation of specific CAP Code rules known as “2.1” and “2.4”.
ASA ruled out against the Tweet, arguing that it was a clear promotion, which, nevertheless, wasn’t identified as one. The lack of specific indicators that reveal Mr. Henderson’s message as advertisement were not present, which led ASA to conclude that similar messages and that specific one, must not re-appear on his account.
William Hill Out of the Fire
A similar reported case was one whereby William Hill received a complaint from a customer whose privileges to bonus had been cut off ahead of a special World Cup promotion.
The company had to deal with a customer who was simply “bonus grabbing” without participating actively on the sportsbook, but rather just snapping up bonuses and using them to play with the extra money.
Ahead of a special promotion which claimed that everyone will receive “two extra bet boosts on all World Cup Matches”, the affected party couldn’t claim any additional goods, which led them to also lodge a complaint.
However, their case was dismissed by ASA. ASA argued that while “all users” could be misleading in the company’s title, it’s very unlikely for anyone who had been given an official notice that they are no longer eligible for promotions to think that something would change for them.
The regulatory stance against bookmakers has been more pronounced. This is not entirely bad, as it helps bookmakers create promotions that are true to form and not misleading. At the same time, with the involvement of ASA, customers can play and rely on a mediator if things are concluded unjustly.