MediaWrites has previously reported on the ASA’s application of the “strong appeal” test in gambling advertising and covered other ASA rulings, including the BetUK radio advert featuring Adebayo Akinfenwa and the Bet365 advert featuring Chris Eubank Jr.

The ASA has now published the outcome of Ladbrokes’ appeal against its earlier ruling on the operator’s “Ladbucks” promotion. In a notable reversal, the ASA has replaced its 11 June 2025 upheld ruling with a new 15 April 2026 decision in which the complaint is not upheld.  

Ruling

The original ruling found that the term “Ladbucks”, taken together with the coin imagery and references to the Ladbrokes store and arcade, was likely to remind under-18s of in-game currencies such as Fortnite’s V-Bucks and Roblox’s Robux, and therefore had strong appeal to under-18s. In particular, the ASA originally considered that the “bucks” suffix, the construction of the name, the token design and the way the promotion worked created a resemblance to youth-oriented gaming currencies.  

The appeal decision takes a narrower approach. It accepts that Fortnite and Roblox are popular with under-18s, and that their in-game currencies are strongly associated with youth culture. It also repeats the CAP and BCAP guidance that marketers should be especially careful with product features that resemble recognisable video games or common gaming features. However, the appeal decision draws a sharper distinction between a generic depiction of a token and an execution that invites an obvious comparison with games popular with under-18s.  

On that basis, the ASA said the word “Ladbuck” on its own was unlikely to create an obvious comparison with V-Bucks or Robux. Although the Ladbuck token shared some generic features with gaming currencies, the appeal decision considered there were material differences in the overall presentation. The Ladbuck was dark red and translucent, the ad used a plain red-and-white setting and plain typography, and the token was not shown being used in a way that mirrored gameplay or in-game purchasing mechanics. The references to “Fishin’ Frenzy” and “Goldstrike” were also brief and not accompanied by child-like imagery or animation. The complaint was therefore not upheld under either the BCAP or CAP Code.  

What are the key lessons?

Generic depictions may be acceptable

This is the most important point from the appeal outcome. The decision suggests that the mere fact a gambling product uses a token, reward mechanic or other feature that has some overlap with youth-oriented games will not, without additional factors, make an advert non-compliant. The key question is whether the creative execution goes further and invites an obvious comparison with games or gaming culture that have strong appeal to under-18s. Advertisers should remain cautious about naming conventions, token design, colour palette, animation style, and any depiction of stores, arcades, rewards or purchase mechanics. The closer the creative gets to the visual language or functionality of well-known youth-facing games, the greater the risk.

Placement restrictions are not enough on their own

Although the ASA acknowledged that the TV ad was shown after 9pm and that the VOD placement had age restrictions, it said those measures did not remove the need to comply with the strong appeal rule because they were unlikely to exclude under-18s entirely. That is a useful reminder that scheduling and targeting restrictions are relevant, but they are not a safe harbour where the content itself presents a problem.  

The Ladbrokes appeal is, therefore, a useful clarification of how the ASA will apply the strong appeal test to gamified promotions. It does not dilute the rule, but it does indicate that there is still room for advertisers to refer to token-based or game-adjacent mechanics in a compliant way, so long as the execution remains generic and avoids obvious comparisons with games popular among under-18s.

The ruling can be found here.