COMMERCIAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE DECISIONS
All Decisions mentioned below are in accordance with the Regulations stipulated in the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L. 583.09).
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 14 of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L. 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication in discussion had not been displayed inside the premises of the operator but on the façade, thereby making it accessible and visible to the public. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the Authorised Person to have breached regulation 14 of the Regulations since the commercial communication in question was located on the façade of the premises, thereby making it accessible and visible to the public. According to Section 2.9 of the Commercial Communication Guidelines, no visuals, i.e. pictures or animations, are to be placed on the façade (including the door) of the approved premises. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 12, 13, 17,18 and 19 of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L. 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The Authorised Person, published information on social media which failed to include or link the disclaimers required to be displayed, namely reference to the competent Authority, the responsible gaming message, the web portal address of an entity devoted to responsible gaming and the minimum age to participate. |
| Decision | The Committee found the operator to be in breach of regulations 12,17,18 and 19 of the Regulations in light of the fact that the Commercial Communication did not include information to be displayed in accordance with the Regulations. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 12, 17, 18 and 19 of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L. 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The online article was in breach of regulations 12, 17, 18 and 19 of the Regulations. The commercial communication in discussion did not include information to be displayed in accordance with the Regulations, namely reference to the competent authority, the responsible gaming message, the web-portal address of an entity devoted to responsible gaming and the minimum age to participate. |
| Decision | The Authority found the operator to be in breach. No enforcement action was taken since the Authorised Person duly informed the Authority that there was a malfunction which led to the omission of the information required by law (and provided information to attest this) and also, the breach was immediately rectified. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 14 of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L. 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | An advertisement was made available to the public by means of a banner within a local stadium. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the Authorised Person not to be in breach of regulation 14 of the Regulations since the Authorised Person provided a sponsorship agreement between the local stadium and the Authorised Person covering the period when the banner was advertised. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 12 of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L. 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The online article included a link where it re-directed its readers to the Authorised Person's gaming website. The article was missing disclaimers as stipulated in regulation 12 of the Regulation. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the Authorised Person in breach of regulation 12. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 6(d) of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L.583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The promotional email outlined that by playing, one can balance his or her 'chakras', which connotes the promotion of general health and personal well-being. Therefore, the Committee had to assess whether such term can be interpreted as implying that by partaking in gambling, one can enhance personal qualities. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the Authorised Person to be in breach of regulation 6(d) since the statement implied that by playing the game, one can improve his general health and wellbeing. Moreover, this was also evidenced by the fact that the statement was used out of context when considering the general information and description of the game being promoted. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 12,17,18 & 29 (1)(d) of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L.583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The promotional article did not display a reference to the entity which issued the relevant authorisation. Moreover, the promotional article lacked the required responsible gaming message and web portal address of an entity devoted to responsible gaming. The commercial communications advertised a Promotional Scheme without including reference to the Terms & Conditions. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the Authorised Person in breach of regulation 12, 17, 18 and 29(1)(d) |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 14 of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L. 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The Commercial Communication was displayed on a banner in a privately owned building, hence breaching regulation 14 of the Regulations that stipulates that no commercial communications may be issued or distributed in any public place. |
| Decision | No Further Action |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 30 of the Commercial Communication (S.L. 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The Promotion or Advertisement, where limited by time or space, did not provide the user an easily accessible alternative source where all the material information is prominently displayed. |
| Decision | No Further Action |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 14 of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L. 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication was advertised by means of a banner, hence breaching regulation 14 of the Regulations that stipulates that no commercial communications may be issued or distributed in any public place. |
| Decision | No Further Action |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 12, 17, 18 & 19 of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L. 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The promotional article did not display a reference to the entity which issued the relevant authorisation. Moreover, the promotional article lacked the required responsible gaming message and web portal address of an entity devoted to responsible gaming. The promotional article also did not display the minimum age requirement. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the Authorised Person in breach of regulations 12, 17, 18 and 19 |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulations 29(1)(d) & 30 of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L. 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communications advertised a Promotional Scheme without including reference to the Terms & Conditions and did not provide an easily accessible alternative source where all the material information is prominently displayed. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the Authorised Person in breach of regulations 29(1)(d) and 30 |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulations 12, 29(1)(d) & 30 of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L. 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communications did not include the name of the relevant Authorised Person and advertised a Promotional Scheme without including reference to the Terms & Conditions and did not provide an easily accessible alternative source where all the material information is prominently displayed. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the Authorised Person in breach of regulations 12, 29 and 30 |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulations 15 of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L. 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication was advertised by means of a TV/Monitor, hence breaching regulation 15 of the Regulations that stipulated that no commercial communications may be placed directly on the premises. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the Authorised Person in Breach of regulation 15. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 4 & 12 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L. 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The Commercial Communication was allegedly published by an unauthorised operator and did not include reference to the entity which issued the relevant authorisation whether such entity is the Authority or the competent authority in the relevant jurisdictions. |
| Decision | No further action |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulations 12, 17, 18 and 19 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L 583.09). |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communications did not feature the name of the relevant authorised person and a reference to the entity which issued the relevant authorisation. Moreover, the commerical communication lacked the required responsible gaming message and web portal address of an entity devoted to responsible gaming. The commercial communication also did not display the minimum age requirement |
| Decision | No further action vis-a-vis the authorised person |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 6(j) of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L 583.09). |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The Commercial Communication in question allegedly provided false or untruthful information about the chances of winning or expected return from gaming |
| Decision | No further action |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 7 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L 583.09). |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | Regulation 7 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L 583.09). |
| Decision | The commercial communication was alleged to be unsolicited in nature in violation of Regulation 7 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L 583.09). |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 7 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L 583.09). |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | Regulation 7 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L 583.09). |
| Decision | The commercial communication was alleged to be unsolicited in nature in violation of regulations 7 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 7 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L.583.09). |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication was determined to be unsolicited in nature in violation of Regulation 7 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations |
| Decision | The Committee deemed that the Authorised Person breached Regulation 7 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 7 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication was determined to be unsolicited in nature in violation of reg. 7 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed that the Authorised Person breached reg. 7 of the Gaming Commercial Communication Regulations. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 7 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication was determined to be unsolicited in nature in violation of reg. 7 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed that the Authorised Person breached reg. 7 of the Gaming Commercial Communication Regulations. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 7 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication was determined to be unsolicited in nature in violation of reg. 7 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed that the Authorised Person breached reg. 7 of the Gaming Commercial Communication Regulations. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 7 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication was alleged to be unsolicited in nature in violation of reg. 7 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations. |
| Decision | No further action |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 7 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication was alleged to be unsolicited in nature in violation of reg. 7 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations. |
| Decision | No further action |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 7 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication was determined to be unsolicited in nature in violation of reg. 7 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed that the Authorised Person breached reg. 7 of the Gaming Commercial Communication Regulations. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 6 (j) of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication in discussion provided false or untruthful information about the chances of winning or expected return from gaming by means of a misleading article. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed that the Authorised Person breached reg. 6 (j) of the Gaming Commercial Communication Regulations. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulations 12, 17, 18 and 19 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communications did not feature the name of the relevant authorised person and a reference to the entity which issued the relevant authorisation. Moreover, the commercial communication lacked the required responsible gaming message and web portal address of an entity devoted to responsible gaming. The commercial communication also did not display the minimum age requirement. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the Licensee to be in breach of Regulations 12, 17, 18 and 19 of the Regulations. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 14 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication was advertised by means of a billboard, hence breaching regulation 14 of the Regulations that stipulates that no commercial communications may be issued or distributed in any public place. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the Authorised Person to be in breach of Regulation 14 of the Regulations. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulations 5 and 6 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication was alleged to have breached regulations 5 and 6 of the Regulations as it exhibited a popular Maltese celebrity making use of the Authorised Person’s gaming service. The Committee held that the nature of the advertisement could not be deemed to be socially irresponsible and that it did not portray gaming as enhancing personal qualities and social attractiveness in breach of the Regulations. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed that no further action shall be taken vis-à-vis the Authorised Person. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 6 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication on social media exhibited a slogan that the Committee deemed as providing false or untruthful information about the chances of winning or expected return from gaming. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the Authorised Person to be in breach of Regulation 6 of the Regulations. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 17, 18, and 19 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication lacked the required responsible gaming message and web portal address of an entity devoted to responsible gaming. The commercial communication also did not display the minimum age requirement. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the Authorised Person to be in breach of Regulations 17, 18 and 19 of the Regulations. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 6 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication in discussion was raised to the attention of the Committee as it was allegedly promoting violence with guns. The Committee collectively agreed that this was not the case as a mere representation of a cartoon character holding a gun does not infer that violence is being promoted. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed that no further action shall be taken vis-à-vis the Authorised Person. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 29 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication in discussion allegedly did not include terms and conditions referring to all material information relating to a promotional scheme. However, on further review of the commercial communication, the Committee noted that the material information pertinent to the promotional scheme in discussion was included in the commercial communication. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed that no further action shall be taken vis-à-vis the Authorised Person. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulations 12, 17, 18, 19 and 29 of the Gaming Commercial Communication Regulations (S.L 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication did not feature the name of the relevant authorised person and a reference to the entity which issued the relevant authorisation. Moreover, the commercial communication lacked the required responsible gaming message and web portal address of an entity devoted to responsible gaming. The commercial communication also did not display the minimum age requirement. Furthermore, the commercial communication did not feature the terms and conditions of the bonus. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the Licensee to be in breach of Regulations 12, 17, 18, 19 and 29 of the Regulations. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulations 12, 17, 18 and 19 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication did not feature the name of the relevant authorised person and a reference to the entity which issued the relevant authorisation. Moreover, the commercial communication lacked the required responsible gaming message and web portal address of an entity devoted to responsible gaming. The commercial communication also did not display the minimum age requirement. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the Licensee to be in breach of Regulations 12, 17, 18 and 19 of the Regulations. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 18 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication lacked the required reference to a web portal address of an entity devoted to responsible gaming. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the Licensee to be in breach of Regulation 18. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulations 12, 17, 18, 19 and 29 of the Gaming Commercial Communication Regulations (S.L 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication did not feature the name of the relevant authorised person and a reference to the entity which issued the relevant authorisation. Moreover, the commercial communication lacked the required responsible gaming message and web portal address of an entity devoted to responsible gaming. The commercial communication also did not display the minimum age requirement. Furthermore, the commercial communication did not feature the terms and conditions of the bonus. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the Licensee to be in breach of Regulations 12, 17, 18, 19 and 29 of the Regulations. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 29 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication did not feature the terms and conditions of the bonus. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the Licensee to be in breach of Regulation 29 of the Regulations. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulations 12, 17, 18 and 19 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication did not feature the terms and conditions of the bonus. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the Licensee to be in breach of Regulations 12, 17, 18 and 19 of the Regulations. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulations 12, 17, 18 and 19 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication did not feature the name of the relevant authorised person and a reference to the entity which issued the relevant authorisation. Moreover, the commercial communication lacked the required responsible gaming message and web portal address of an entity devoted to responsible gaming. The commercial communication also did not display the minimum age requirement. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the Licensee to be in breach of Regulations 12, 17, 18 and 19 of the Regulations. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 12 and Regulation 18 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communications did not display the name of the relevant authorised person and a reference to the entity which issued the relevant authorisation. Moreover, the commercial communication lacked the required reference to a web portal address of an entity devoted to responsible gaming. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the Licensee to be in breach of Regulations 12 and 18. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulations 17, 18 and 19 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication lacked the required responsible gaming message and web portal address of an entity devoted to responsible gaming. The commercial communication also did not display the minimum age requirement. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the Licensee to be in breach of Regulations 17, 18 and 19 of the Regulations. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulations 12 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication did not feature the name of the relevant authorised person and a reference to the entity which issued the relevant authorisation. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the Licensee to be in breach of Regulations 12 of the Regulations. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulations 5 of the Gaming Commercial Communication Regulations (S.L 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication was deemed to be socially irresponsible as it portrayed gambling as a solution to the boredom that one might experience as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the Licensee to be in breach of Regulation 5. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulations 12, 17, 18 and 19 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication did not feature the name of the relevant authorised person and a reference to the entity which issued the relevant authorisation. Moreover, the commercial communication lacked the required responsible gaming message and web portal address of an entity devoted to responsible gaming. The commercial communication also did not display the minimum age requirement. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the Licensee to be in breach of Regulations 12, 17, 18 and 19 of the Regulations. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulations 29 and 30 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication did not feature the terms and conditions of the bonus. Furthermore, the material information was more than the one click away from the commercial communication itself as required by the Regulations. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the Licensee to be in breach of Regulations 29 and 30 of the Regulations. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 29 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication did not feature the terms and conditions of the bonus. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the Licensee to be in breach of Regulations 29 of the Regulations. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulations 12, 17, 18 and 19 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication did not feature the name of the relevant authorised person and a reference to the entity which issued the relevant authorisation. Moreover, the commercial communication lacked the required responsible gaming message and web portal address of an entity devoted to responsible gaming. The commercial communication also did not display the minimum age requirement. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the Licensee to be in breach of Regulations 12, 17, 18 and 19 of the Regulations. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulations 12, 17, 18 and 19 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication did not feature the name of the relevant authorised person and a reference to the entity which issued the relevant authorisation. Moreover, the commercial communication lacked the required responsible gaming message and web portal address of an entity devoted to responsible gaming. The commercial communication also did not display the minimum age requirement. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the Licensee to be in breach of Regulations 12, 17, 18 and 19 of the Regulations. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulations 12, 17, 18 and 19 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication did not feature the name of the relevant authorised person and a reference to the entity which issued the relevant authorisation. Moreover, the commercial communication lacked the required responsible gaming message and web portal address of an entity devoted to responsible gaming. The commercial communication also did not display the minimum age requirement. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the Licensee to be in breach of Regulations 12, 17, 18 and 19 of the Regulations. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulations 12, 17, 18 and 19 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication was deemed to be socially irresponsible as it portrayed gambling as a solution to the boredom that one might experience as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, the commercial communication did not feature the name of the relevant authorised person and a reference to the entity which issued the relevant authorisation. Moreover, the commercial communication lacked the required responsible gaming message and web portal address of an entity devoted to responsible gaming. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the Licensee to be in breach of Regulations 5, 12, 17, and 18. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulations 12, 17, 18 and 19 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication did not feature the name of the relevant authorised person and a reference to the entity which issued the relevant authorisation. Moreover, the commercial communication lacked the required responsible gaming message and web portal address of an entity devoted to responsible gaming. The commercial communication also did not display the minimum age requirement. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the Licensee to be in breach of Regulations 12, 17, 18 and 19 of the Regulations. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulations 12, 17, 18 and 19 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication did not feature the name of the relevant authorised person and a reference to the entity which issued the relevant authorisation. Moreover, the commercial communication lacked the required responsible gaming message and web portal address of an entity devoted to responsible gaming. The commercial communication also did not display the minimum age requirement. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the Licensee to be in breach of Regulations 12, 17, 18 and 19 of the Regulations. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 12 and Regulation 18 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communications did not display the name of the relevant authorised person and a reference to the entity which issued the relevant authorisation. Moreover, the commercial communication lacked the required reference to a web portal address of an entity devoted to responsible gaming. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the Licensee to be in breach of Regulations 12 and 18. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulations 12,17,18 and 19 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L. 583.09). |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication did not feature the name of the relevant authorised person and a reference to the entity which issued the relevant authorisation. Moreover, the commercial communication lacked the required responsible gaming message and web portal address of an entity devoted to responsible gaming. The commercial communication also did display the minimum age requirement. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the Licensee to be in breach of Regulations 12, 17, 18 and 19 of the Regulations. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulations 5,12 and 18 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L.583.09). |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communications exploited the situation relating to the COVID-19 pandemic by encouraging the public to stay indoors in order to partake in gambling activities. The Authority deemed this to be unethical and socially irresponsible. Furthermore, the commercial communications did not display the name of the relevant authorised person and a reference to the entity which issued the relevant authorisation. Moreover, the commercial communication lacked the required reference to a web portal address of an entity devoted to responsible gaming. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the Licensee to be in breach of Regulations 5,12, and 18. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulations 12,17,18 and 19 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L. 583.09). |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication did not feature the name of the relevant authorised person and a reference to the entity which issued the relevant authorisation. Moreover, the commercial communication lacked the required responsible gaming message and web portal address of an entity devoted to responsible gaming. The commercial communication also did not display the minimum age requirement. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the Licensee to be in breach of Regulations 12, 17, 18 and 19 of the Regulations. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 5 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L. 583.09). |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication exploited the situation relating to the COVID-19 pandemic by encouraging the public to stay indoors in order to partake in gambling activities. The Authority deemed this to be unethical and socially irresponsible. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the Licensee to be in breach of Regulations 5. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulations 12, 17, 18 and 19 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L.583.09). |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The Commercial communication did not feature the name of the relevant authorised person and a reference to the entity which issued the relevant authorisations. Moreover, the commercial communication lacked the required responsible gaming message and web portal address of an entity devoted to responsible gaming. The commercial communication also did not display the minimum age requirement. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the Licensee to be in breach of Regulations 12, 17, 18 and 19. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulations 5 and 12 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L.583.09). |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication on social media exploited the situation relating to the COVID-19 pandemic by encouraging the public to stay indoors in order to partake in gambling activities and a solution to the boredom that one might experience as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, the commercial communication did not feature the name of the relevant authorised person and a reference to the entity which issued the relevant authorisation. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the Licensee to be in breach of Regulations 5 and 12. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulations 5,12,17,18 and 19 of the Gaming Commercial Communication Regulations (S.L.583.09). |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication was deemed to be socially irresponsible as it portrayed gambling as a solution to the boredom that one might experience as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, the commercial communication did not feature the name of the relevant authorised person and a reference to the entity which issued the relevant authorisation. Moreover, the commercial communication lacked the required responsible gaming message and web portal address of an entity devoted to responsible gaming. The commercial communication also did not display the minimum age requirement. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the Licensee to be in breach of Regulations 5,12,17,18 and 19. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 5 and Regulation 20(d) of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L.583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication featured popular characters and personalities, which were deemed to be predominately attractive to minors. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the licensee to be in breach of Regulation 5 and 20(d). |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 5 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L. 583.09). |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication exploited the situation relating to the COVID-19 pandemic by encouraging the public to stay indoors in order to partake in gambling activities. The Authority deemed this to be unethical and socially irresponsible. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the licensee to be in breach of Regulation 5. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulations 5,12,17 and 18 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L.583.09). |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication exploited the situation relating to the COVID-19 pandemic by encouraging the public to stay indoors in order to partake in gambling activities. The Authority deemed this to be unethical and socially irresponsible. Furthermore, the commercial communication did not display the name of the relevant authorised person and a reference to the entity which issued the relevant authorisation. Moreover, the commercial communication lacked the required responsible gaming message and web portal address of an entity devoted to responsible gaming. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the licensee to be in breach of Regulation 5, 12, 17 and 18. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 5 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L. 583.09). |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication on social media suggested that engaging in gambling activities can be means to avoid exposure to the COVID-19 Virus. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the licensee to be in breach of Regulation 5. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 18 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L.583.09). |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication failed to include the web portal address of an entity to responsible gaming. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the licensee to be in breach of Regulation 18. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulations 17, 18 and 19 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L.583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication lacked the required responsible gaming message and web portal address of an entity devoted to responsible gaming. The commercial communication also did not display the minimum age requirement. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the licensee to be in breach of Regulations 17, 18 and 19 |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 5 of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L. 583.09). |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication exploited the situation relating to the COVID-19 pandemic by encouraging the public to stay indoors in order to partake in gambling activities. The Authority deemed this to be unethical and socially irresponsible. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the licensee to be in breach of Regulation 5. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 5 and Regulation 20(d) of the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L.583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication featured popular characters and personalities, which were deemed to be predominantly attractive to minors. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the licensee to be in breach of Regulation 5 and Regulation 20(d) of the Gaming Commercial Communication Regulations (S.L 583.09) |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 14 of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L. 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The licensee promoted its services by means of a billboard advertisement. The licensee argued that the advert was aimed to target a specific demographic of people working in the gaming industry. Moreover, the licensee argued that the billboard was placed near the Malta International Airport. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the licensee to be in breach of Regulations 14. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 12, 17, 18 & 19 of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L. 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication did not display a reference to the entity which issued the relevant authorisation. Moreover, the commercial communication lacked the required responsible gaming message and web portal address of an entity devoted to responsible gaming. The commercial communication also did not display the minimum age requirement. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the licensee to be in breach of Regulations 12, 17, 18 & 19. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 12, 17, 18 & 19 of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L. 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication was published on a magazine without displaying the relevant information in accordance with the Gaming Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L. 583.09). The licensee acknowledged that regulation 12 had been breached, however, the Committee was provided with sufficient evidence that proved that the other information had been included by the licensee. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the licensee to be in breach of Regulation 12. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 12, 17, 18 & 19 of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L. 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication did not display a reference to the entity which issued the relevant authorisation. Moreover, the commercial communication lacked the required responsible gaming message and web portal address of an entity devoted to responsible gaming. The commercial communication also did not display the minimum age requirement. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the licensee to be in breach of Regulations 12, 17, 18 & 19. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 12, 17, 18 & 19 of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L. 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication did not display a reference to the entity which issued the relevant authorisation. Moreover, the commercial communication lacked the required responsible gaming message and web portal address of an entity devoted to responsible gaming. The commercial communication also did not display the minimum age requirement. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the licensee to be in breach of Regulations 12, 17, 18 & 19. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 12, 17, 18 & 19 of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L. 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication did not display a reference to the entity which issued the relevant authorisation. Moreover, the commercial communication lacked the required responsible gaming message and web portal address of an entity devoted to responsible gaming. The commercial communication also did not display the minimum age requirement. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the licensee to be in breach of Regulations 12, 17, 18 & 19. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 12, 17, 18 & 19 of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L. 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication did not display a reference to the entity which issued the relevant authorisation. Moreover, the commercial communication lacked the required responsible gaming message and web portal address of an entity devoted to responsible gaming. The commercial communication also did not display the minimum age requirement. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the licensee to be in breach of Regulations 12, 17, 18 & 19. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 20 of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L. 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The promotional article featured minors. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the licensee to be in breach of Regulation 20. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 12, 17, 18 & 19 of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L. 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The promotional article did not display a reference to the entity which issued the relevant authorisation. Moreover, the promotional article lacked the required responsible gaming message and web portal address of an entity devoted to responsible gaming. The promotional article also did not display the minimum age requirement. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the licensee to be in breach of Regulations 12, 17, 18 & 19. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 19 of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L. 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication did not feature a sign indicating the minimum age to participate in the game being promoted. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the licensee to be in breach of Regulation 19. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 14 of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L. 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication was displayed in premises accessible by the public. |
| Decision | The Committee did not deem the licensee to be in breach of Regulations 14, since the licensee submitted evidence to the Committee attesting that the premises formed part of a hotel, thereby falling under the exemption envisaged in Regulation 14(2)(a) of the Regulations. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 12, 17, 18 & 19 of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L. 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication did not display a reference to the entity which issued the relevant authorisation. Moreover, the commercial communication lacked the required responsible gaming message and web portal address of an entity devoted to responsible gaming. The commercial communication also did not display the minimum age requirement. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the licensee to be in breach of Regulations 12, 17, 18 & 19. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 6 & Regulation 12 of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L. 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication portrayed irresponsible behaviour by showing individuals drinking alcohol while gambling. The said commercial communication also did not display the licence number. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the licensee to be in breach of Regulations 6 & 12. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 12, Regulation 13, Regulation 17, Regulation 18 & Regulation 19 of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L. 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | Commercial Communication did not display the minimum information required by law. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the licensee to be in breach of Regulations 12, 13, 17, 18 & 19. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 4 of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L.583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | Promotional material relating to unlicensed games was issued on social media, redirecting anyone interacting with the commercial communication to the licensee’s website. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the licensee to be in breach of Regulation 4. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 12, Regulation 13, Regulation 17, Regulation 18 & Regulation 19 of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L. 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The advertisement did not display the minimum information required by law. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the licensee to be in breach of Regulations 12, 13, 17, 18 & 19. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 12, Regulation 13, Regulation 17, Regulation 18 & Regulation 19 of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L. 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The advertisement did not display the minimum information required by law. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the licensee to be in breach of Regulations 12, 13, 17, 18 & 19. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 12, Regulation 13, Regulation 17, Regulation 18 & Regulation 19 of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L. 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The advertisement did not display the minimum information required by law. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the licensee to be in breach of Regulations 12, 13, 17, 18 & 19. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 6 & Regulation 12 of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L. 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication portrayed irresponsible behaviour by showing individuals drinking alcohol while gambling. The said commercial communication also did not display the licence number. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the licensee to be in breach of Regulations 6 & 12. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 12, Regulation 13, Regulation 17, Regulation 18 & Regulation 19 of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L. 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | Commercial Communication did not display the minimum information required by law. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the licensee to be in breach of Regulations 12, 13, 17, 18 & 19. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 4 of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L.583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | Promotional material relating to unlicensed games was issued on social media, redirecting anyone interacting with the commercial communication to the licensee’s website. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the licensee to be in breach of Regulation 4. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 12, Regulation 13, Regulation 17, Regulation 18 & Regulation 19 of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L. 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The advertisement did not display the minimum information required by law. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the licensee to be in breach of Regulations 12, 13, 17, 18 & 19. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 12, Regulation 13, Regulation 17, Regulation 18 & Regulation 19 of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L. 583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The advertisement did not display the minimum information required by law. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the licensee to be in breach of Regulations 12, 13, 17, 18 & 19. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 17 & Regulation 18 of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L.583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The advertisment that was published within a magazine did not display a responsible gaming message and the web portal address linking it to an entity devoted to responsible gaming. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the licensee to be in breach of Regulation 17 and Regulation 18. The licensee’s immediate response was taken into consideration in determining the enforcement action. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 12, Regulation 17, Regulation 18 & Regulation 19 of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L.583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication did not display a reference to the entity which issued the relevant authorisation. Moreover, the commercial communication lacked the required responsible gaming message and web portal address of an entity devoted to responsible gaming. The commercial communication also did not display the minimum age requirement. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the licensee to be in breach of Regulation 12,17,18 and 19. The licensee’s immediate response was taken into consideration in determining the enforcement action. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 17 & Regulation 18 of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L.583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication did not display a responsible gaming message and a web portal address of an entity devoted to responsible gaming. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the licensee to be in breach of Regulation 17 and Regulation 18. The licensee’s immediate response was taken into consideration in determining the enforcement action. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 6, Regulation 12, Regulation 17, Regulation 18 & Regulation 19 of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L.583.09)Regulation 6, Regulation 12, Regulation 17, Regulation 18 & Regulation 19 of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L.583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The imagary used in this commercial communication depicted the consumption of alcoholic beverages whilst gambling activities are taking place. The commercial communication also did not display a reference to the entity which issued the relevant authorisation. The commercial communication also lacked the required responsible gaming message and web portal address of an entity devoted to responsible gaming. Moreover, no minimum age requirement was displayed. |
| Decision | The committee deemed the licensee to be in breach of Regulation 6,12,17,18 and 19. The licensee’s immediate response was taken into consideration in determining the enforcement action. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 17 & Regulation 18 of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L.583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication did not display a responsible gaming message and a web portal address of an entity devoted to responsible gaming. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the licensee to be in breach of Regulation 17 and Regulation 18. The licensee’s immediate response was taken into consideration in determining the enforcement action. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 12, Regulation 17, Regulation 18 & Regulation 19 of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L.583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication did not display a reference to the entity which issued the relevant authorisation. It also lacked the required responsible gaming message and web portal address of an entity devoted to responsible gaming. The commercial communication also did not display the minimum age requirement. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the licensee to be in breach of Regulation 12,17,18 and 19. The licensee’s co-operation was taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the enforcement action. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 4 of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L.583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | An esports event was organised which was sponsored by an illegal gambling operator. This gave rise to breaches pertaining to the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L. 583.09) and of the Gaming Act (Cap. 583 of the Laws of Malta), thereby also giving rise to criminal liability. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the company organising the event to be in breach of Regulation 4 of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L.583.09). |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 7(1) and Regulation 8 of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L.583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The licensee reported an incident that occured on their systems whereby players were not effectively allowed to self-exclude themselves and block any marketing materials whatsoever by means of the mobile application. The incident report indicated the rectification measures to be imposed on the system. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the licensee to be in breach of Regulation 7(1) and Regulation 8. The licensee’s immediate response was taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the enforcement action. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 7(1) of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L.583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The licensee reported an incident concerning the circulation and marketing of emails and SMS’s to players. The incident report indicated the measures chosen to rectify the situation with immediate effect. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the licensee to be in breach of Regulation 7(1) of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L.583.09). The licensee’s immediate response was taken into consideration in determining the enforcement action. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 12[b] of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L.583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication failed to display a reference to the entity that issued the relevant Authorisation on various occasions. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the licensee to be in breach of Regulation 12(b) of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L.583.09) |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 7(1) of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L.583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication consisted of the use of telephone communication for the provision of unsolicited communications. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the licensee to not be in breach of Regulation 7(1) of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L.583.09), since the licensee proved to the satisfaction of the Committee that the commercial communication was targeted towards players that subscribed to receive marketing material from the licensee in accordance with the preferences of the same players. Any player that did not opt to receive such marketing material was not contacted via such communication channels. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 6(a) of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L.583.09 |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication depicted individuals drinking alcoholic beverages whilst gambling. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the licensee to be in breach of Regulation 6(a) of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L.583.09). The licensee’s cooperation was taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the enforcement action. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 6(a) of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L.583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The promotional banners found on the licensee’s website made direct reference to illegal substances and substance abuse by displaying various imagery related to marijuana. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the licensee to be in breach of Regulation 6(a) of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L.583.09). The licensee’s cooperation was taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the enforcement action. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 14(1) of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L.583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication was displayed on a public transportation vehicle. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the licensee to be in breach of Regulation 14(1) of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L.583.09). |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 6(e) of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L.583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication portrayed gaming in a manner which makes reference to toughness, resilience or recklessness. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the licensee to be in breach of Regulation 6(e) of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L.583.09). The licensee’s cooperation was taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the enforcement action. |
| Applicable Provisions | Regulation 14(1) of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L.583.09) |
| Nature of Alleged Breach | The commercial communication was displayed on a public transportation. Moreover, the vehicle in question was used as transportation for schools, meaning that minors and vulnerable persons were exposed to the licensee's promotional material. |
| Decision | The Committee deemed the licensee to be in breach of Regulation 14(1) of the Commercial Communications Regulations (S.L.583.09). The licensee's cooperation was taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the enforcement action. |
Commercial Communications Committee Guidelines
| Title | |
|---|---|
| Commercial Communications Committee Guidelines |
SHARE THIS page
