The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) investigated on four issues regarding Profit Accumulator LTD, and upheld all of them, after receiving a total of three complaints related to the matched betting service advertising.
Three websites as well as a paid-for advert on Facebook of the Profit Accumulator’s matched betting service were put under investigation by the UK gambling advertising regulator. The first website which was seen in July 2017, www.profitaccumulator.co.uk, featured a Home Page message saying that the process could be repeated on new offers on a daily basis in order to generate a continuous income. In addition, text on another page calling potential users to join the offer and earn thousands by using matched betting.
Another website seen in June 2017, www.matchedbettingcentre.com, featured a page which displayed a review for another matched betting company – OddsMonkey. The review conclusion said that the OddsMonkey service was not recommended, but instead customers could try the one offered by Profit Accumulator.
There was a third website seen in June last year – www.matchedbettingbasics.com – that featured a page displaying a review for OddsMonkey, headed with the phrase “Is it a scam?”. Below, the matched betting service of OddsMonkey was compared to the one of Profit Accumulator, with lower rating given to OddsMonkey.
The fourth issue was related to a paid-for ad on Facebook, which was seen in October 2017, suggesting that the service provided by the brand would bring potential customers enough extra money.
Issues and Profit Accumulator’s Response to Allegations
Three complaints were received by the Advertising Standards Authority on the afore-mentioned ads.
First, the matched betting company OddsMonkey challenged the reviews displayed at www.matchedbettingcentre.com and www.matchedbettingbasics.com as misleading, after it find out that both websites were property of Profit Accumulator. The company shared its belief that the displayed reviews were not impartial or independent and said they were misleading to potential customers.
Also, a member of the public challenged the Profit Accumulator advert on www.profitaccumulator.co.uk saying that the part implying that thousands could be earned by players through matched betting was misleading. In addition, another member of the public said that the claims made in the paid-for Facebook ad were irresponsible, as the commercial suggested that gambling could be used by potential customers to solve their financial problems.
In addition, the UK advertising regulatory body challenged whether part of the ad displayed on www.profitaccumulator.co.uk was irresponsible, because of a suggestion made in it that gambling could be used as an alternative to employment or a way towards achieving financial stability.
Responding to the above-mentioned issues, Profit Accumulator revealed that both www.matchedbettingcentre.com and www.matchedbettingbasics.com were operated by its affiliate and pledged that it would ask the affiliate to add a notice disclosing the relationship of the afore-mentioned websites to Profit Accumulator.
As for the claims in the ad stating that thousands could be generated on a weekly basis by using the matched betting services of Profit Accumulator, the company provided a document to prove how its service had been used by a customer to earn an amount of £1,000 in a period of a few weeks. The company also revealed that it had removed the ad’s references to specific timeframes in which the amount could be earned by customers.
Regarding the allegations towards its paid-for Facebook ad, Profit Accumulator stated that the testimonial was genuine. Furthermore, the company explained that matched betting could not be categorised as gambling, so it believed that the advert had not implied that gambling should be used as a solution to any financial problems. Still, the company revealed that the claims that matched betting service could bring extra money to customers had been removed.
As far as the ASA allegations are concerned, Profit Accumulator insisted that their service could not be considered as a gambling service, so according to the company, the CAP Code rules were not applied. Furthermore, the operator said that it made it clear that customers should not risk their own funds.
ASA Assessment and Action
The Advertising Standards Authority investigated the above-mentioned issues under CAP Code rules and eventually, upheld all of them.
As far as the first issue is concerned, the advertising regulatory body said that marketing communications which under which false claims were made were prohibited under the CAP Code rules. The ASA considered that both www.matchedbettingcentre.com and www.matchedbettingbasics.com were operated on behalf of Profit Accumulator as they were operated by a company’s affiliate. According to the regulator, the ads breached CAP Code rule 2.3 concerning Recognition of marketing communications, so the complaint was upheld.
The second issue was also upheld by the Advertising Standards Authority, with the operator explaining that consumers were likely to misunderstand the claims that thousands could be earned by using matched betting services. The regulatory authority explained that no supporting evidence was provided to back these claims and did not believe that a single example was sufficient enough to back these claims. On this point, the ASA concluded that CAP Code rules 3.1 and 3.7 concerning Misleading advertising and Substantiation were violated.
The third and fourth issues were also upheld by the advertising regulatory authority, which found that CAP Code rules 16.1 and 16.3.4 regarding Gambling were breached.
As a whole, the Advertising Standards Authority said that the ads must not be displayed in their current form any more and ordered Profit Accumulator not to present itself as a consumer. In addition, the ASA recommended to the company to stop making claims that could mislead potential consumers in terms of possible winnings.
- Author
Olivia Cole
