Navigating the digital age: The need for online‐specific gambling marketing regulations

The announcement of an overhaul of the United Kingdom (UK) Gambling Act in 2020 was hailed as a chance to ensure that gambling regulation is ‘fit for the digital age’ [1]. The need for the update was underscored by research highlighting serious issues with online gambling marketing [2-9]. Unfortunately, the unveiling of the Gambling Act Review White Paper in April 2023 failed to offer much in the way of an update, lacking substantive interventions in online gambling marketing. This is at odds with the approach taken by neighbouring European countries, which are increasingly restricting gambling marketing [10, 11]. In the absence of a major legislative overhaul—that would require political will that seems currently absent—we must rely on a self-regulatory system of advertising regulation via the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and its sister organisation the Committee of Advertising Practise (CAP). Solely funded by the advertising industry through a voluntary levy, the CAP creates and maintains advertising codes across all sectors, which are then regulated by the ASA. As part of the UK licencing conditions all gambling operators must comply with these self-regulation codes. ASA and CAP insist that these advertising codes—that are derived from a 1960s offline world—work ‘offline equally as online’ [12]. However, it is increasingly clear that current codes are ill-equipped to deal with some online gambling advertising techniques [2, 4, 9, 13]. The precision targeting capabilities of online marketing are very different and arguably more powerful than traditional mass methods. They also create new opportunities to influence consumers without their cognition [14]. Brands can tailor advertisements to individuals based on their age, interests and online behaviour, presenting concerns about the targeting of vulnerable audiences [15, 16]. However, unlike television broadcasts, where adverts can be recorded and kept for post hoc investigation online ads often vanish after a brief period—creating a ‘dark space’ where many ads go unnoticed and unchecked [3]. Although technological solutions have been proposed by the regulator [17], the efficacy of monitoring online ads remains questionable. The sheer volume of online advertising compounds these challenges, with over 1 million unique UK gambling ads per year on Twitter alone [3]. Advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) are facilitating the rapid production of ads at almost zero cost, potentially leading to an exponential increase in advertising volume. This unprecedented volume not only overwhelms (vulnerable) consumers, but also creates serious enforcement challenges, for a regulator who is tasked with monitoring and regulating gambling advertising to avoid harm [16]. In response to these challenges, we believe that policymakers must prioritise the development of online-specific regulations rather than revisions of pre-existing codes. This can stop current online advertising circumventing regulations and help regulators keep track of advertising activity. Beyond this, we believe that the volume of gambling marketing should be regulated as well as the content. The exponential growth in generative AI underscores the urgency of implementing comprehensive measures to safeguard individuals from the pervasive influence of gambling advertising. Finally, to ensure that the transient and highly targeted nature of online advertising can be investigated appropriately, policymakers must establish a database where all online gambling ads are stored, to ensure accountability and enable researchers and policymakers to probe online ads. It is time to stop turning a blind eye to the online world and start making regulations ‘fit for the digital age’. Raffaello Rossi: Conceptualization (equal); investigation (equal); project administration (equal); writing—original draft (equal); writing—review and editing (equal). Agnes Nairn: Conceptualization (equal); investigation (equal); project administration (equal); writing—original draft (equal); writing—review and editing (equal). None of the authors have any conflicts on interest in relation to this letter. Author disclosures are provided below. R.R. has received funding from The Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), GambleAware, UK Gambling Commission and Action Against Gambling Harms. He is member of the Bristol Hub for Gambling Harms Research. A.N. has received funding from ESRC, GambleAware, UK Gambling Commission and Action Against Gambling Harms. She is co-director of the Bristol Hub for Gambling Harms Research.