Slotty Vegas isn’t a brand we had heard of before 4th July, but it would appear the brand has been around since 2014. It only hit our radar recently because the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) had received a complaint about a statement on their web page from December 2017.
According to the ruling published on Wednesday 4th July, the home page of Slotty Vegas once featured a statement claiming “Our Games Pay More”. This lead to a single complaint to the ASA because the complainant felt that the statement was misleading and that the claim could not be substantiated.
The site responded to the complaint with an explanation of their in-house feature called Supercharged Wins. The feature is exclusive to this casino and sees players earn extra funds on top of winnings generated from playing at the casino.
Details of the Supercharged Wins are available on the home page of the site, but actually, it all seemed a little convoluted and with no terms and conditions clearly accessible, it is easy to see why the ASA made the ruling they did.
NNR Entertainment Ltd, the company behind Slotty Vegas, felt that the Supercharged Wins caveat entitled them to make the claim that their games pay more. However, even in their response, they stated quite clearly that ALL operators use a random-number generator to define the payout of any game (the return to player/RTP).
The ASA took into consideration the bonus feature that the online casino had to offer players and accepted that they provided relevant data to show that with Supercharged Wins players did earn between 0.5% and 1.5% more on winnings.
However, they could not substantiate the claim that Slotty Vegas’ games paid more in comparison to other operators, as they did not have details of how much their competitors paid out. This meant that the claim was misleading and, as such, was in breach of the following CAP codes:
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.
Marketing communications that include a comparison with an identifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer about either the advertised product or the competing product.
You can read the full adjudication against Slotty Vegas from the ASA here.