Mr Vegas has been criticised by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) for an ‘irresponsible’ social media advert that was likely to be of strong appeal to under-18s and therefore a breach of code.
The decision by the ASA on Videoslots, trading as Mr Vegas, comes as the UK government banned under-16s from using social media in June, which could have an impact on gambling advertising in the market.
According to the authority, the operator ran a paid-for advert on Facebook on 5 February 2026, which featured an image with the headline “MR VEGAS CASINO SLOTS SPORTS” on a black brick wall and several iGaming titles with related imagery.
The text in the caption read: “New games every. single. week [sic] [loveheart face emoji],” with further text setting out the terms for playing the games, stating ‘Play Responsibly’ and linking to GambleAware. The ad also included 18+, BeGambleAware.org and GAMSTOP logos.
Pink Elephants 2, Razor Returns, Sweet Bonanza, and Big Bass Bonanza were the titles featured in the advert, each with imagery and text related to its title:
- Pink Elephants 2 featured a large pink cartoon elephant with beams of light on a lilac background
- Razor Returns had a large robotic, cartoon shark with a cartoon ocean, landscape and sky background
- Sweet Bonanza was candy-themed and featured bright, multi-coloured, bubbly text.
- Big Bass Bonanza included an animated fisherman, backlit by beams of light and holding a large fish.
The ASA challenged whether the advert was likely to be of strong appeal to under-18s and therefore breached the code, but Mr Vegas argued against this.
Mr Vegas makes its case
Mr Vegas noted that the game tiles featured game imagery and artwork ‘intrinsic to, and inseparable from’ the games’ branded identity, and that the titles were ‘commercially published slot games by established game developers, licensed by the Gambling Commission and intended exclusively for adult audiences in regulated gambling markets’.
The operator also said it ‘understood that cartoon-style graphics were not automatically prohibited in gambling advertising; it depended on whether the execution and context were adult in nature’, believing its advert fell into that category.
Pink Elephants 2
Mr Vegas noted that the Pink Elephants 2 tile imagery was ‘abstract and fantastical’, highlighting that it was a stylised pink elephant on a lilac background, depicted in a psychedelic, surreal style with intimidating or scary eyes and a body surrounded by an armour-like feature.
The operator added that the imagery ‘was not drawn from children’s media; nor did it resemble a licensed children’s character’, and that it ‘was not a soft toy, with exaggerated “cute” features, of the kind associated with children’s programming’.
Razor Returns
For Razor Returns, Mr Vegas said the tile imagery was action-oriented and designed for adult players, featuring a robotic, mechanical shark in a fantasy-ocean setting, presenting the shark as ‘a metallic, aggressive predator, rather than a soft, “cute”, or child-friendly character’.
In addition, the operator said the tile ‘had none of the hallmarks of children’s programming. The setting was a dramatic fantasy seascape, which they saw as a visual convention common in adult gaming across video games and casino products’.
Sweet Bonanza and Big Bass Bonanza
Regarding Sweet Bonanza, Mr Vegas said the candy-themed aesthetic and bright colours was ‘an artistic choice by the game developer to evoke fun and excitement for adult players’ and no ‘children’s characters, licensed children’s media or content specifically targeted at under-18s’ was depicted, only the stylised game logo and background artwork.
For Big Bass Bonanza, the operator said the tile had a cartoon-style fisherman who ‘was clearly an adult male, with a full beard, which they considered was in line with the CAP Guidance, Gambling and lotteries advertising: protecting under-18s’, stating that the character wasn’t a recognisable or licensed children’s character and fishing was of broad adult appeal.
Mr Vegas also said that:
- Robust and verifiable controls were in place to prevent the ad from being served to under-18s.
- The ad was configured within Meta Ads Manager with a minimum age restriction of 18 years, utilising Meta’s audience targeting controls.
- Held documentary evidence of the targeting settings applied to the ad.
- The ad was placed only on platforms and placements where Meta enforced age-verification or age-gating, consistent with Meta’s policies for gambling advertisers operating under a UK Gambling Commission licence.
The operator added that it applied audience exclusions and placement restrictions to their paid-for, social-media advertising, so custom and lookalike audiences ‘were constructed from verified adult customer data only’, and no audience segments likely to feature a large number of under-18s were used.
Mr Vegas concluded by stating that ‘targeting combined with prominent, responsible gambling messaging and logos to signal that the ad was directed at adults’.
ASA disagrees
In response, the ASA stated that it believes the Mr Vegas ad was ‘irresponsible and breached the code’, noting that even if the tiles featured imagery of slots from licensed developers, careful selection needs to take place to avoid being of strong appeal to under-18s.
The ASA said imagery of the Pink Elephants 2 tile was ‘reminiscent of children’s cartoons and story books’ and that the image was cute rather than scary, saying the styles used were similar to the Ice Age franchise and therefore likely to be of strong appeal to under-18s.
For Razor Returns, the authority noted that robots were likely to be popular among children and therefore should be avoided, despite the image being unlikely to be considered ‘cute’.
“We considered that the image was recognisably a robotic shark with exaggerated features, set against a brightly coloured seascape and landscape background, and considered the image was likely to appeal strongly to under-18s.”
Regarding Sweet Bonanza, the ASA said ‘bright, multi-coloured, bubbly text on a blue and pink background, displayed no prominent or specific features or characters that would appeal strongly to under-18s’ with the imagery likely to be identified as a sweet being obscured.
As for Big Bass Bonanza, the authority said the fisherman ‘was the type of character that could be found in a children’s animated programme’.
However, it was also noted that the character in the slot was ‘not a recognisable or licensed children’s character’, the fish being held ‘appeared more life-like than exaggerated or fantastical’ and fishing was ‘less likely to appeal strongly to under-18s’.
“We considered that it would have been acceptable for gambling ads which featured content likely to be of strong appeal to children to appear in a medium where those aged under 18, for all intents and purposes, could have been entirely excluded from the audience. That would apply in circumstances where those who saw the ads had been robustly age-verified as being 18 or older.”
Yet, the authority cited an Ofcom report from 2025, which stated that ‘30% of respondents (namely their parents) said that their child used Facebook, but that figure represented the proportion of usage amongst all 3- to 17-year-olds. The figure rose to 56% of 16- to 17-year olds’, thus it considered that a large proportion of under-18s use Facebook.
Meta’s Teen accounts feature for Facebook was also recognised as being available before the date on which the ad was seen.
However, since the feature relies on users’ self-declared age, and an Ofcom research based on a 2025 survey estimating 20% of respondents (1,793 social media users aged 8–17 years) had a registered online profile age of at least 18, it believes there was ‘at least a significant number of children who had not used their real date of birth when signing up to Facebook, who were able to see and access content intended for those aged 18 or older’.
This included Mr Vegas paid-for advertising, despite controls, exclusions and restrictions being implemented.
Verdict
The ASA concluded that the ad was ‘irresponsible’, breached the code, must not appear again in its current form, and the operator must not feature content likely to be of strong appeal to under-18s in the future.
iGaming Expert has reached out to Mr Vegas for comment on the decision made by the ASA on its advert.
