Two Gambling Affiliates Banned Over Similar Ads in Seven Weeks

Two gambling affiliates have received remarkably similar Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) rulings just seven weeks apart. These rulings raise questions about how gambling advertisements are targeted, particularly through automated search advertising systems.

In the latest ruling, published on 28 October 2026, the ASA upheld a complaint against Optival Ltd. Their advert promoting betting bonuses appeared in response to a Google search for ‘self exclusion bookies’.

This follows a near-identical ruling against another gambling affiliate, Smart Gravity Ltd, published on 9 September. That case involved an advert for online casinos appearing when somebody searched for ‘help with gambling’.

Both affiliates maintained that they had safeguards in place to prevent their adverts reaching potentially vulnerable consumers. However, in both cases, the ASA concluded that the existing measures were inadequate.

So, are these simply two unfortunate incidents, or do they expose a wider problem with automated gambling advertising?

Optival Becomes Second Affiliate to Face ASA Ruling

According to the ASA's latest ruling, an advert for Optival's betting comparison website, bestbookiesandbettingsites.co.uk, appeared following a search for ‘self exclusion bookies’ on 10 August.

The advert promoted a comparison of 15 UK bookmakers alongside first-bet bonuses and welcome offers.

Optival insisted that it had never deliberately targeted the search term. It also explained that it maintained negative keyword lists designed to prevent its adverts appearing alongside searches relating to self-exclusion, GAMSTOP and problem gambling.

However, an investigation of its Google Ads search term reports found no record of the relevant phrase triggering its advertising campaigns.

The company suggested that the advert may have appeared because of Google's automated query matching. So, that search had potentially fallen below the platform's reporting thresholds.

Despite these explanations, the ASA concluded that the advert had not been responsibly targeted. It found that Optival had breached Rule 1.3 of the CAP Code, requiring advertising to demonstrate social responsibility.

Almost Identical Ruling Issued in September

The latest decision bears striking similarities to the ASA's ruling against Smart Gravity, published on 9 September. In that case, a similar advert appeared through Microsoft Advertising following a search for ‘help with gambling’.

Smart Gravity, which operated top10onlinecasinoreviews.co.uk, also maintained that it had not deliberately targeted consumers seeking gambling support.

Like Optival, it provided evidence of negative keyword lists and other advertising controls intended to prevent inappropriate targeting. However, Smart Gravity acknowledged using a combination of exact, phrase and broad keyword matching.

The ASA found that broader matching options could cause adverts to appear alongside searches that were related to, but did not directly contain, targeted keywords. As such, it concluded that the affiliate's safeguards had not been sufficiently robust to prevent advertising from reaching potentially vulnerable consumers.

Could Automated Advertising Be Behind the Problem?

Search advertising has become increasingly reliant on automated systems. The primary function of these systems is to match advertisements with relevant search queries.

This means that rather than requiring advertisers to specify every individual phrase they wish to target, platforms can identify related searches and display adverts accordingly.

This can help advertisers reach potential customers, but it also creates challenges when certain search terms must be excluded.

According to Google's own guidance on negative keywords, exclusions do not automatically account for all close variants or related terms. For example, blocking one version of a phrase does not necessarily prevent an advert from appearing alongside a slightly different version.

Google also acknowledges that searches with insufficient query activity may be omitted from its search term reports to protect user privacy.

This potentially creates a difficult situation for advertisers. They must prevent their adverts from appearing alongside inappropriate searches. Yet, they likely won’t have complete visibility over every query that triggers an impression.

It’s not possible to establish exactly what caused either of the recent ASA breaches. However, it does help to explain why advertisers may struggle to identify and prevent every instance of inappropriate targeting.