CELEBRITY ENDORSEMENTS
government passed a law (the “Dignity Decree”) that banned all gambling advertising, including advertising at sporting or artistic events, television or radio broadcasting, and internet advertising, with the exception of national and local lotteries, as well as logos for responsible gambling. 41 For any breaches of the Dignity Decree, fines can be imposed in the amount of 20 percent of the value of the advertising, with a minimum €50,000 fine for each violation. 42 While there is no specific mention of the use Celebrities or influencers in the Dignity Decree, there have been fines related to hosting online content creators that advertise or use gambling products or services. Some of the more notable fines in Italy have not been imposed against Operators but against social media platforms themselves. For example, Italy’s communications regulator, Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni (“AGCOM”) fined Google €2,250,000 because Google’s subsidiary, YouTube, had content creators that (i) had contractual relationships with YouTube as part of the YouTube Partner Program, (ii) were publishing gambling content, and (iii) had demographics that primarily reached Italian audiences. 43 Other social media platforms like Meta, X, and Twitch have also been fined by AGCOM for similar reasons. Conclusion Regulated jurisdictions have varying approaches to Celebrities and gambling advertising, but the majority share a common objective: protecting vulnerable segments of the population, particularly those who are not of legal gambling age. Determining which jurisdiction has had the best results depends on one’s view of how best to
balance personal choice and social responsibility. Some may be of the view that restricting advertising altogether (e.g., Belgium) is the best policy when it comes to gambling advertisements. Others may think that penalizing the platforms themselves (e.g., Italy), having severe financial repercussions on Celebrities (e.g., France), or a self-regulatory model (e.g., the United Kingdom) are effective strategies to limit the impact of gambling advertisements on youth and vulnerable groups. In the author’s view, Ontario’s approach of allowing athletes and Celebrities to participate in gambling advertisements to a certain extent is logical. Allowing professional athletes to appear in responsible gambling messages is advantageous to both (i) Operators, who can continue to build brand awareness through an athlete’s image as a responsible service, as well as through Celebrities and (ii) the general public who are made more aware of responsible gambling tools and strategies. Further, Ontario’s policy of allowing non-athlete Celebrities to participate in advertising as long as they do not appeal to minors is similar to other jurisdictions (e.g., the United States and the United Kingdom), which reinforces that it is a fair and balanced approach. Ultimately, there are various strategies for how regulated jurisdictions oversee celebrity gambling advertising, and while no single approach may be the “best”, following how new market entrants develop their policies could offer valuable insights into which jurisdictions covered in this article are shaping the most effective and influential laws and regulations. This assumes that jurisdictions collect and publish data on the effectiveness of their approaches and how the incidence in their jurisdiction of, say, gambling among minors differs from that of others.
ZACHARY PEARLSTEIN Associate, GME Law, Toronto For more information contact zack@gmelawyers.com
41 Legislative Decree No. 87/2018 at Article 9(1). 42 AGCOM, Guidelines on How to Implement Article 9 of Decree No.87 of July 12, 2018 at page 3, published April 26, 2019. 43 Resolution No. 317/23/CONS at page 32, December 5, 2023.
PAGE 43
IMGL MAGAZINE | MARCH 2025
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker