The Advertising Standards Authority recently upheld a complaint received against All British Casino concerning an email distributed by one of their affiliates, but it’s a ruling that can’t be monitored in all fairness.
The problem appears to have arisen because the complainant received an email from All British Casino inviting them to register an account and claim 15 free spins on a slot game called Gonzo’s Quest.
The complainant suggested that the email breached the CAP Code because he had not consented to receive marketing emails from All British Casino.
The ASA investigated the complaint under the following two CAP Codes and found that the email was in breach of both.
The explicit consent of consumers (see rule 10.4) is required before:
sending marketing communications by electronic mail (excluding by Bluetooth technology) but marketers may send unsolicited marketing about their similar products to those whose data they have obtained during, or in negotiations for, a sale. Data marketers must, however, tell those consumers they may opt out of receiving future marketing communications both when they collect the data and at every subsequent occasion they send out marketing communications. Marketers must give consumers a simple means to do so
Marketers must not make persistent and unwanted marketing communications by telephone, fax, mail, e-mail or other remote media. To avoid making persistent and unwanted marketing communications, marketers must do everything reasonable to ensure that:
marketing communications are not sent unsolicited to consumers if explicit consent is required (see rule 10.13)
All British Casino responded to the complaint by informing the ASA that the email had been sent by an affiliate. Unfortunately, the affiliate could not be identified because the complainant no longer had the original email.
The ASA were informed that had the affiliate been traced, their account would have been closed with immediate effect.
However, even if the original email had been to hand, often an affiliate will mask a link in an unsolicited email so would it have been of any real use in finding the culprit?
The ASA sided with the complainant and have told L&L Europe Ltd t/a All British Casino to ensure they have received the appropriate consent for marketing emails from the recipient in future.
This company own and operate several casinos online and the chances are that this email was in fact a cross-marketing exercise.
Could it be that the complainant actually held an account with one of the following brands and was simply targeted for that reason?
If that was the case, is this ASA ruling going to have a fair reaching impact on many companies who cross promote their products?
It will be interesting to see if this one ruling opens the floodgates for a substantial amount of complaints – after all, haven’t we all received PPI calls and invitations to enlarge our genitalia – all of which are unsolicited (at least in this household)!