About this app
What is Lucky Charms Trio?
On Wednesday the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruled against Midnite following an investigation into a paid TikTok advertisement featuring an AI-generated character who appeared to be under the age of 25 and engaging in gambling activity.
The ASA reviewed a clip posted to TikTok in July promoting Midnite, a Gibraltar-based online casino app. The clip displayed a young-looking man using the app, accompanied by the voiceover: “Another massive World Cup upset. Bet £10 on the big match and get £30 in free bets. Level up your World Cup with Midnite, get on it.”
According to the ASA’s Code for gambling advertising, anyone who “was, or seemed to be, under 25 years of age” must not be depicted gambling or playing a significant role in advertisements.
What is Lucky Charms Trio?
In a LinkedIn post on Monday, Keurmerk Verantwoorde Affiliates (KVA), the Dutch casino affiliate quality mark, voiced concerns about the role of Google search in directing Dutch consumers towards illegal online gambling sites.
The group highlighted potential risks posed by Google’s organic search features beyond paid advertising, which include autocomplete and suggested queries.
Using data collected primarily through Chrome’s incognito mode to exclude personalised search histories, the KVA identified several autocomplete and pre-fill search queries that directly suggested illegal gambling platforms to users.
About Lucky Charms Trio
The Commission’s intervention followed hot on the heels of the £600,000 regulatory settlement with QuinnBet, announced eight days earlier.
Its findings contained an all-too-familiar combination of ineffective systems, delayed interventions and inadequate source-of-funds controls. One customer placed approximately 4,800 bets in one day and 7,000 the next without being flagged. Another, whose payslips showed monthly earnings of about £2,000, deposited and lost £9,000 in four days.
“What is striking here is the level of activity that apparently failed to trigger effective intervention,” Williams says. “These were obvious indicators requiring further scrutiny, and it is difficult to understand why they did not result in more effective intervention.”
