On Wednesday, the UK's Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruled against Midnite, an operator of an online casino app based in Gibraltar, in relation to a paid TikTok advertisement featuring an AI-generated character. This character appeared to be under 25 and was shown engaging in gambling activity.
The ASA took issue with a clip that had been posted on TikTok in July, which promoted Midnite. The advertisement featured a young-looking man interacting with the app, with a voiceover stating: "Another massive World Cup upset. Bet £10 on the big match and get £30 in free bets. Level up your World Cup with Midnite, get on it."
Under the ASA’s Code for gambling advertising, it is prohibited for individuals who are or appear to be under 25 years old to be depicted in gambling contexts or play significant roles in such advertisements. The ASA determined that the character's youthful facial features, casual appearance, and excited demeanor suggested he could be in his late teens or early twenties.
Consequently, the advertisement was found to violate rule 16.3 of the CAP Code (Edition 12).
Midnite’s operator, Dribble Media Ltd, claimed that the advertisement had not received authorization from the company. They pointed out inconsistencies in branding and asserted that the content was created and disseminated by an affiliate, Limay Media Ltd, without Midnite’s consent.
In response to the ruling, Midnite announced it had terminated its contract with Limay and planned to issue compliance reminders to its partners.
Limay Media acknowledged that the character was a fictional, AI-generated figure rather than a real person, insisting the design was meant to resemble an adult. They accepted responsibility for mistakes in their internal approval process, described the incident as an isolated event, and noted the ad was removed within hours of its posting.
The company indicated that it has introduced new safety protocols for AI-generated gambling advertisements, including specifying age-related prompts and reviewing the perceived age of generated images. However, the ASA determined that the character's age was not convincingly verified, as the prompts did not explicitly require the AI to create a character aged 25 or older. Without a reliable verification process in place, the ASA concluded that the character still appeared to be under 25 years old.
The ASA instructed both Dribble Media and Limay Media to prevent the offending advertisement from being displayed again in its current form.
This ruling marks the third time Midnite has faced scrutiny from the ASA in 2023. Last month, the operator was criticized for an advertisement that implied that gambling could serve as an escape from personal problems, leading to 125 complaints and a directive to remove that ad. A separate ruling in June was not upheld.
In a different matter, the ASA addressed display ads for White Hat Gaming's brands, Casimba and The Grand Ivy Casino, which ran on HLTV.org, a site focused on the Counter-Strike 2 esports community, in March 2026.
These ads promoted a “100% match bonus up to £100 on 1st deposit” and included the required 18+ logo. They were featured alongside live match coverage that displayed betting odds and sponsor logos, including links to Casimba’s website.
A complaint suggested that the advertising was improperly targeted at minors. White Hat Gaming paused the ads during the investigation and contended that HLTV’s audience are primarily adults engaged in professional gaming, distinct from casual play that tends to attract younger individuals. HLTV supported this assertion, highlighting its adult-oriented editorial focus.
The ASA assessed whether the ads were pitched towards under-18s based on their content or placement, as their regulations forbid ads in areas where over 25% of the audience is likely to be underage. Although the audience metrics did not conclusively confirm the site's age demographics, the ASA acknowledged minor under-18 percentages on HLTV's social media channels while noting that the website's content was clearly tailored for adults.
Ultimately, the ASA found that the advertising did not breach CAP Code rules 16.1 or 16.3.13 and took no further action in this case.
