Should UK Affiliates Be Regulated and Subject to the CAP Code?

[Broadway_Simon]

Do affiliates think they should be subject to the same legislation as operators with regards to marketing. I refer to the CAP code which operators abide by;

https://www.asa.org.uk/codes-and-rul...cast-code.html

Or run the risk of facing a fine like BGO. BGO get a 300k fine but their affiliates (who were referenced in the case) receive no penalty.

http://www.igamingbusiness.com/news/...ising-fine-bgo

The onus is on the operator to ensure affiliates act responsibly. Should more onus be pushed on the affiliate?

[-Shay-]

Do affiliates think they should be subject to the same legislation as operators with regards to marketing. I refer to the CAP code which operators abide by;

https://www.asa.org.uk/codes-and-rul...cast-code.html

Or run the risk of facing a fine like BGO. BGO get a 300k fine but their affiliates (who were referenced in the case) receive no penalty.

http://www.igamingbusiness.com/news/...ising-fine-bgo

The onus is on the operator to ensure affiliates act responsibly. Should more onus be pushed on the affiliate?

I would say that any type of email or sms marketing or any form of "paid advertising" (billboard, television ads, google ppc campaign) should be subject to regulations. I do not think that a "review portal" should be. If regulations are put on portals, then they would also need to apply to those casual players who drop a "refer a friend" link or code in their facebook posts. That is not to say that review portals should not have "standards" but I would not go so far as to say they should be "regulated".

Also, until program terms and conditions are cleaned up, I do not think that the program should have the ability to pass a fine along to an affiliate. If a program has created a "misleading" or "deceptive" campaign and a review portal details said campaign then it is the designer that should be held to the fire. The portal was merely explaining the campaign. They did not create it. If the program has the ability to pass the fine along in an instance such as this, they will be given a free pass to find reason to push blame and responsibility onto affiliates.

[Triple7]

In general, I am not a supporter of more bureaucracy. But, of course, if a casino receives a fine for misleading information, an affiliate that is misleading customers, should receive a fine too if they are providing misleading information.

[juegos]

I'd say the casinos are responsible for who they 'hire' as affiliates, not the bureaucrats - the casinos should monitor the affiliates.

[-Shay-]

In general, I am not a supporter of more bureaucracy. But, of course, if a casino receives a fine for misleading information, an affiliate that is misleading customers, should receive a fine too if they are providing misleading information.

I would agree to this if it was a case of the affiliate "purposely" misleading customers. However, if a brand puts out a promo that is later deemed "misleading", I would not want a fine placed on me for simply describing that promo as the brand put it out.

[-Shay-]

I would agree to this if it was a case of the affiliate "purposely" misleading customers. However, if a brand puts out a promo that is later deemed "misleading", I would not want a fine placed on me for simply describing that promo as the brand put it out.

For example, if the site has "15 free on signup + a 1500% welcome bonus" advertised on their website (in reality, the offer requires you to register your credit card in order to get the 15 & the 1500% is a series of five 300% deposit bonuses) & their affiliate newsletter has also pedaled that line to me (as an affiliate), I do not believe affiliates should be held accountable for not being able to count if they "echo" the brand's advertising.

[universal4]

I agree that I do not feel affiliate should be held responsible for misleading advertising if they are just presenting promotions as determined by the operator.

And ANY promotion of 5 x 300% deposit bonuses being advertised and promoted as 1500% is FALSE and MISLEADING, and no operator should ever provide such advertising. If an operator claims 1500%, then the player should be getting 1500% of something but I have yet to have a single operator that does this show the math where anyone gets 1500% of anything.

Rick
Universal4

[Triple7]

I would agree to this if it was a case of the affiliate "purposely" misleading customers. However, if a brand puts out a promo that is later deemed "misleading", I would not want a fine placed on me for simply describing that promo as the brand put it out.

Yes, I do agree that like if at a bus stop you publish a banner and later it's misleading, it should be more the responsibility of the operator. On the other hand, I think review sites claiming to be a worthful source and not just a banner farm or operator propaganda show have some responsibility to in providing the correct information.

We all know too that 5 bonuses of 300% are not the same as a 1.500% bonus.

Besides that, sometimes affiliate try to make things nicer as they are too. Especially when it's about bonuses, bonus terms and how games actually are working.

[roccolondon]

I do not believe affiliates should have to be regulated, but If they mislead customers directly or indirectly it's all the same and they should be subject to lines from up the line of course.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Miles_Videoslots]

Regulation is good for everyone it keeps the waters clean if you like. I don't believe that it should be regulated as heavily but an affiliate that is abusing his partners or misleading his players intentionally however or by whatever means should face some sort of moderation?

I do agree that affiliates should not be punished for feeding the public misleading advertisements after all these have been passed onto them by the operators marketing teams however in this industry nothing should be taken for granted and things should be checked if they are too good to be true they normally are .

[Scampi]

With the rise of streamers on Twitch and YouTube, I think regulation is needed there. Some casinos give the streamers free money with massively high wagering so that it can never be withdrawn but is made to look like real play. Others ask for deposits to be entered into prize draws which is against UK lottery laws.

[ocreditor]

I think that affiliates shouldn't be regulated, too much bureaucracy at the end will lead to less affiliates and will damage the economy in general.
Regulation is important but not everything need to be regulated some aspects should not be regulated but should be supervised in a way.

[DanHorvat]

It would be ridiculous to regulate UK affiliates while these same affiliates are getting shaved by UK operators, and UK banks won't open bank accounts for them.

[HodgeyBoy]

Don't think that specific regulation of affiliates is required but my job would be much easier if there was some sort of recognised accreditation that means that I know the person is who they say they are and that they don't have a background of unethical actions..... Kind of like the GPWA seal but with more behind it.

I'm expecting there to be significant changes to wording in the T&C's of most UK-facing operators to make much more clearer and specific the expectation that affiliates will abide by the same legal constraints as the operator has to when advertising their services.

Changing T&C's is always a headache and I know that it makes affiliates nervous but £300k fines at BGO and investigations at 888 and suddenly you have the attention of CEOs etc who will be/are already shining the spotlight on Marketing Departments and Affiliate Managers.

[-Shay-]

Don't think that specific regulation of affiliates is required but my job would be much easier if there was some sort of recognised accreditation that means that I know the person is who they say they are and that they don't have a background of unethical actions..... Kind of like the GPWA seal but with more behind it.

I'm expecting there to be significant changes to wording in the T&C's of most UK-facing operators to make much more clearer and specific the expectation that affiliates will abide by the same legal constraints as the operator has to when advertising their services.

Changing T&C's is always a headache and I know that it makes affiliates nervous but £300k fines at BGO and investigations at 888 and suddenly you have the attention of CEOs etc who will be/are already shining the spotlight on Marketing Departments and Affiliate Managers.

I was under the impression that bgo themselves misled the consumer under the law and did not address the "concerns" of UKGC. I also thought that it was a supporting detail that a few affiliates were also failing to adjust their advertising.

It sounded like a clear case of bgo put out an ad that was created in a way UKGC did not like. The affiliates echoed the ad. To me, this should not be passed on to the affiliate, as it was bgo who created the ad from the sound of it.

[HodgeyBoy]

I was under the impression that bgo themselves misled the consumer under the law and did not address the "concerns" of UKGC. I also thought that it was a supporting detail that a few affiliates were also failing to adjust their advertising.

It sounded like a clear case of bgo put out an ad that was created in a way UKGC did not like. The affiliates echoed the ad. To me, this should not be passed on to the affiliate, as it was bgo who created the ad from the sound of it.

Yes I agree with that assessment. Having read the report put out regarding BGO it did seem that they'd been warned about this in 2016 and had promised to take steps but did not do what was required. In that sense then, the affiliates certainly seem to have only been doing what they were told by BGO and using assets provided by BGO.

However, the general direction of travel at the UKGC/ICO/ASA etc is towards strict compliance. The operators won't put their licenses at risk so CEOs are likely to be watching their Marketing Departments very closely.

Most Programmes that I know of also have indemnity clauses in the affiliate terms. So if in the coming months an affiliate has been told to change their practices and does not and causes the operator to be fined then we may well see just who strong that oft-ignored clause will turn out to be.

My take-away from the last 6 months of following compliance issues is that I'll be less likely to work with people I don't know or that I can't verify as being legit as it just won;t be worth the risk (you should see the grief I get when a member of the public complains about an SMS that they didn't realise that they opted in for!)

The danger is that programmes will become risk averse and concentrate most of their budget towards existing large affiliates or agencies and, as a result, the diversity of the affiliate channel is diminished.

[Synthetic]

Do affiliates think they should be subject to the same legislation as operators with regards to marketing. I refer to the CAP code which operators abide by;

Absolutely NO! I am not sure why you will have to be subject to the same regulations. After all it's enough fair to work under your company`s profile and pay your annual taxes for your business!

[loquax]

The onus is on the operator to ensure affiliates act responsibly. Should more onus be pushed on the affiliate?

I thought the onus was already being pushed on to affiliates judging by the various emails we've had over the last year or so. From making sure offers are up to date to adding disclaimers about reviews to making sure things like "terms apply" is added on social media posts etc.

I think it's a good thing. As a UK affiliate you're automatically meant to follow the CAP code for advertising but I'd expect that to go from "you have an error on your site" to being fined or kicked off a program to be a fairly long journey - i.e. plenty of opportunity to fix it.

The only thing that bugs me is when an operator gets a bit heavy with their requests - and yet other affiliate sites are less compliant. I'd like to see a bit of uniformity on that score. E.g. we got warned for using an image off an operator's site because it'd didn't say "Ts&Cs apply" and it wasn't in the social media post - yet if you searched for the brand on Twitter there were countless others doing the same thing for weeks.

Others ask for deposits to be entered into prize draws which is against UK lottery laws.

I would disagree with that. In the past a purchase necessary prize draw did require a "no fee entry route" but that changed a few years back. The deposit is for the deposit, the prize draw element is a reward. Paying the deposit to just enter the prize draw - where no skill element is required - is when it becomes a raffle/lottery (e.g. win a house style competitions) and that's when things become awkward.

Jason

[MichaelCorfman]

Simon, thank you for asking this question. I've added a poll, and moved it to the polls section of the forum, and we will feature it as this week's question of the week.

Thanks,

Michael

[Topboss]

In a perfect world I would say Affiliates should be responsible if they advertise incorrect information, however the unfortunate thing is that very often the Affiliate Programs / Casinos don't notify their Affiliates of any changes, nor provide them with updated Marketing materials, so the Affiliate could land up being held responsible for something that is out of their power.

Secondly There is nothing in place to protect Affiliates against Unscrupulous Operators or even audits for Affiliate stats, so why should Affiliates be held responsible for the Casinos when the Casinos have nothing in place to protect the Affiliates.

It works both ways, therefore I voted No