‘Ban on gambling advertising’ versus players turning to the black market  

The debate over gambling advertising is becoming increasingly heated. On the one hand, researchers and health organisations are calling for stricter restrictions to reduce the harms caused by gambling. On the other hand, industry representatives warn that too many restrictions could actually drive players towards illegal operators.  

This contrast became apparent once again this week following the publication of an analysis by the Trimbos Institute on the effectiveness of a ban on gambling advertising.  

According to Trimbos, the available scientific evidence shows that advertising contributes to the normalisation of gambling, can reinforce the intention to gamble and may ultimately lead to greater gambling-related harm. The institute also states that there is little convincing scientific evidence to support the frequently heard claim that advertising is necessary to keep players away from illegal gambling sites.  

According to Trimbos, there are other factors that influence the choice of illegal operators, such as bonuses, product range, crypto payments and the avoidance of restrictions such as self-exclusion registers.  

A different perspective from the sector  

Dr Andreas Ditsche, Group CEO of iGaming.com, takes a fundamentally different view of the same issue.  

In a recent interview with Gambling Club, he warned that policymakers must take care not to make the legal market less attractive than the illegal alternative.  

According to Ditsche, problems arise when taxes become too high and when legal operators face ever-increasing restrictions.  

“If taxes are too high in the legal market, players will opt for the untaxed illegal alternative,” said Ditsche.  

He pointed to the falling channelling figures in various European markets.  

“The Wild West is just a click away” 

Ditsche also sees a direct link between strict regulation and the appeal of illegal operators.  

“A high level of rules and restrictions in the legal market can also push players towards the black market,” he argued.  

He added a statement that is now frequently quoted within the sector.  

“The Wild West is just one click away.”  

According to Ditsche, policymakers must realise that, in a digital environment, consumers constantly have alternatives at their disposal.  

“If you don’t like the food in a restaurant, you don’t eat less. You look for another restaurant.”  

He believes the same principle applies to online gambling.  

Clash between two visions  

Remarkably, both sides share the same objective: protecting consumers from the harms of gambling. 

However, the way in which that aim is to be achieved varies considerably.  

Trimbos focuses primarily on the role of advertising, visibility and normalisation. From that perspective, restricting marketing can help reduce exposure and, ultimately, gambling-related harm.  

Ditsche, on the other hand, emphasises channelling. In his view, the legal market must remain attractive enough to keep players within the regulated system.  

He argues that if too many restrictions are imposed on legal providers, there is a risk that consumers will turn to offshore providers who pay no heed to national regulations.  

The evidence remains a matter of debate  

It is precisely on this point that opinions diverge.  

Trimbos argues that there is little scientific evidence to suggest that advertising bans automatically lead to an increase in illegal gambling.  

Ditsche, on the other hand, points to the economic reality of the market and to indications from various European countries where, in his view, stricter rules were accompanied by a decline in channelling.  

The question of what ultimately poses the greatest risk — too much advertising or a growing black market — therefore remains a matter of debate.  

What is becoming clear, however, is that the debate on gambling advertising has long since ceased to be confined to marketing alone.  

Increasingly, it is about a fundamental policy choice. 

Should the focus be on limiting exposure to gambling? Or should the priority be on keeping the legal offering as attractive as possible?  

That debate seems far from settled for the time being.