GambleAware chief executive Zoë Osmond has robustly defended the charity’s work following a recent complaint from the Good Law Project. This complaint, filed in March, questions how effectively GambleAware disseminates information and accuses its trustees of failing to provide adequate gambling harm education.

The Good Law Project argues that GambleAware’s underperformance stems from its industry ties and its “reliance on industry funding.” In response, Osmond reaffirmed the charity’s independent stance, stating to iGB that GambleAware operates independently from the gambling industry.

Osmond has once again reiterated GambleAware’s independence and expressed confidence that the complaint will not be upheld. The Charity Commission is still assessing whether it needs to take action regarding the complaint.

“Our robust governance and commissioning practices ensure that the industry has no influence over our operations. GambleAware’s independence has been widely recognised by a range of stakeholders including the government, as evidenced in the gambling white paper,” Osmond stated.

She further criticized the Good Law Project’s complaint, labeling it as based on “misleading and outdated information.” While confident that the complaint will be dismissed, Osmond voiced concerns over the potential negative impact of such claims on GambleAware’s services and their beneficiaries.

Concerns Over Impact on Vulnerable Players

GambleAware is not just dismissing the complaint as baseless but also highlighting its potential adverse effects on at-risk gamblers who rely on the charity’s support services. The charity fears that such claims may discourage individuals from seeking help.

Osmond elaborated, “The deeply stigmatized nature of gambling harms often makes it difficult for individuals to reach out for help. Maintaining the credibility and reputation of essential support services is crucial to reaching people before their gambling issues become catastrophic.”

She emphasized that undermining these services risks harming not just those directly seeking help but also the families and friends affected by their loved ones’ gambling problems.

Defending Treatment Effectiveness

To bolster its defense, GambleAware pointed to statistics from the National Gambling Support Network. These statistics reveal that nine out of ten vulnerable players who complete their treatment see an improvement in their condition. For those whose conditions did not improve, 69% did not complete their treatment.

GambleAware also highlighted the significant reach of its resources, including its website, which attracts 6.5 million visits annually. Furthermore, the charity’s national stigma public health campaign has reached over 95% of the population, showcasing its extensive efforts to address gambling harms.

GambleAware remains steadfast in its commitment to providing independent and effective support to those affected by gambling harms. The charity continues to defend its practices and reputation against the allegations made by the Good Law Project, underscoring its vital role in the fight against gambling-related issues.

Source: “GambleAware defends its position after ‘misleading and outdated claims’”. iGamingBusiness. May 20, 2024.

The post GambleAware Defends Independence Against Misleading Claims by Good Law Project appeared first on Keno Wizard.

The Public Health Advocacy Institute, which is the plaintiff, argues that the $1,000 bonus bet offer is unfair and that it misleads players into thinking that they are receiving $1,000 for free. In fact, the terms are near-impossible to complete, the lawsuit seems to allege.

Addressing the Nature of Bonus Marketing

To obtain the amount, a customer would need to deposit $5,000 and wager $25,000 within 90 days, and the bonus cannot be redeemed or transferred, which makes the terms even harder on players.

Although this is all true on the face of it, DraftKings does not seem to be deviating at all from what is a standard bonusing practice in the United States. The complaint filed by the Public Health Advocacy Institute outlines its objection:

DraftKings knew, or should have known, that its advertisement and promotion was deceptive to their target customers, who were new to sports betting and were extremely unlikely to understand the gambling lingo in the fine print.

Public Health Advocacy Institute,

The institute is generally looking to address omissions in the practices that companies that promote addictive products have in their marketing terms. For the most part, the institute has gone after cigarette companies, but as gambling is becoming more prominent, it’s likely to see more of these attempts to ensure that the industry is safe.

DraftKings Did Not Turn Players Into Addicts

Noteworthy, though, the institute is not accusing DraftKings of seeking to turn consumers into addicts, but rather that it should take a more cautious approach to its bonus wording to avoid confusion among players. DraftKings is not doing anything that it hasn’t already been doing in other states, however, the established company offering this bonus in 22 other states.

DraftKings is also a member of the American Gaming Association’s Have A Game Plan, a campaign designed to promote awareness for safe and responsible play and raise awareness among consumers about legitimate gambling products.

The post DraftKings Faces Lawsuit in Massachusetts for Misleading Bonus appeared first on Keno Wizard.