HOW TO STOP CGSOROLL & CO AND GRIM, KAZLIC, MOE AND SPARKLES

(COLLECTIVELY “OUR TARGETS”) FROM DECIMATING THE REPUTATION

OF LEGIT AND LICENSED IGAMING SITE

1. My research has yielded evidence that there is no time like the present to bring down

gamefluencers gamfluencers like our Targets. This is because in the past 2 years, law

enforcements in many jurisdictions including influential ones with political clout and

enforcement reach are cracking down on gamefluencers gamfluencers who get paid obscenely

to draw customers and revenue to shady unlicensed gambling sites. These include skins sites

which pretend to they are not carry out gambling activities. This camouflage has, for all intents

and purposes, been disregarded in different ways by the laws of such jurisdictions.

2. The key to bringing these 4 entities Target social media influencers down is to leverage

on the broadening reach of the laws of powerful jurisdictions such as the US, UK, and the EU

in the past 2 years. In recent months, enactments, updatings of laws and their informants

enforcements have stepped up to reached a crescendo pitch.

3. In a nutshell, countries such as the US, UK and those in the EU have passed or are on

the verge of passing laws, as well as engaged engaging in creative enforcement methods, on

against unconscionable gamefluencers gamfluencers in such an aggressive manner that the

status quo has the potential of outlawing the careers of our Targets. Some of these laws directly

illegalize the Target’s activities while others do so indirectly. Even so, both types of laws are

powerful ammunitions that can be used to put our Targets out of business once and for all.
 2

4. It is the fact that many jurisdictions are seeking to circumvent jurisdictional immunity

by making laws that to and enforcing them against entities that are beyond the reach of

traditional domestic laws, that is spearheading the current momentum of international

campaigns against gamefluencers gamfluencers who cross the lines of legality and morality.

Essentially, law enforcements are now prepared to act as long as it can be shown that the

audiences reached by these gamfluencers include individuals residing in the enforcing country,

which is not a difficult thing to do considering the platforms on which gamfluencers such as

our Targets are active on are massively used everywhere, namely YouTube, Twitch, Kick,

Twitter, Instagram, TikTok and to a lesser extent Facebook.

5. Consequently, the situs of the individual Target is not relevant nor an impediment to

the campaign to end their illegal promotion of illegal and unethical sites. Nevertheless, for

context, their likely situs will be recorded here.

Jurisdictions In Which our Targets Are Based

Pseudonym Real name Nationality Residence

Grim Sebastian Gjerlaugsen Norwegian Likely Holland1

Sparkles Edd Stanton British Likely UK

Moe Mohammed Assad Palestine-American Likely US

Kazlic Brandon Kazlic American Likely US

1
His Facebook post in 2016 indicated he was moving to Holland.
 3

6. In the US, in December 2022, consumer protection law enforcement the Federal Trade

Commission in the US (“FTC”), succeeded in creatively using The Children's Online Privacy

Protection Act of 1998 (“COPPA”) to compel Epic Games, maker of skins gambling

marketplace Fortnite to settle allegations by the FTC that it used deceptive tactics that drove

users to make unwanted purchases in the multiplayer shooter game that became wildly popular

with younger generations a few years ago. The FTC then opened the claims process for the

more than 37 million potentially affected users who could qualify for compensation2. The

settlement required Epic Games to pay a total of $520 million to settle US government

allegations that it misled millions of players, including children and teens, into making

unintended purchases and that it violated the COPPA. In one settlement, Epic agreed to pay

$275 million to the US government to resolve claims that it violated the COPPA by gathering

the personal information of kids under the age of 13 without first receiving their parents’

consent. In a second and separate settlement, Epic also agreed to pay $245 million as refunds

to consumers who were allegedly harmed by user-interface design choices that the FTC

claimed were deceptive.3

7. This is an example of how, in its determined bid to crack down on gamefluencers

gamfluencers without the lengthy process of enacting new laws, law enforcement agencies are

creatively using existing legislations to bring these entities to heel.

8. COPPA is a United States federal law4 that applies to websites and online services

operated for commercial purposes that are either directed toward children under 13 or have

2
h;ps://edi>on.cnn.com/2023/09/19/tech/fortnite-refund-se;lement-claim/index.html - :~:text=The FTC said
in a,up charges without parental consent.”
3
ibid h;ps://www.Lc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2019/09/google-youtube-will-pay-record-170-
million-alleged-viola>ons-childrens-privacy-law
4
located at 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506 (Pub. L.Tool>p Public Law (United States) 105–277 (text) (PDF),
112 Stat. 2681-728, enacted October 21, 1998).
 4

actual knowledge that children under 13 are providing information online. An updated version

of COPPA, the Children and Teens' Online Privacy Protection Act, informally called COPPA

2.0, has been introduced in the 118th Congress in 2023, effectively raising the age covered by

COPPA from 13 to 16 years, thus broadening its application.

9. The legal jurisprudential difficulty with using COPPA is that it was intended to protect

the privacy of children and has not much to do with scummy gambling sites. Yet, the FTC went

ahead anyway. Its approach is novel and interesting. As scummy sites are typically endorsed

and promoted by young gamefluencers gamfluencers, who incidentally are mostly

predominantly young celebrities whose followers are predominantly typically older children

and teens, the FTC was able to use COPPA to penalise such sites by connecting the use of these

sites by minors and the inevitable collection of the latter’s data.

10. The FTC’s objections to Epic Games sound very familiar with the scam sites that are

the target of our attentions such as CGSOROLL which is that they use “dark patterns and other

deceptive practices to trick players into making unwanted purchases”, making it “easy for

children to rack up charges without parental consent” and locking players out of their accounts

in response to users’ chargeback requests with credit card companies disputing unwanted

charges.”5

11. The FTC’s clever use of COPPA provides us with ammunitions to get to Grim and the

Gang indirectly (the COPPA cannot be used against Grim and the Gang as they are merely

influencers and not “websites and online services operated for commercial purposes”) by

5
h;ps://edi>on.cnn.com/2023/09/19/tech/fortnite-refund-se;lement-claim/index.html - :~:text=The FTC said
in a,up charges without parental consent.”
 5

pressurising Valve with the precedent of the unprecedented settlement that Epic Games

was forced to make to settle FTC’s allegations—failure to do so would have certainly led to

criminal charges under the COPPA.

12. Like Epic Games, Valve Corporation is an American entity; the likelihood of it being

subject to the same penalties that Epic Games was imposed with is an inevitability since the

FTC would not want to be seen deviating from its own precedent, which would immediately

attract protestation and even a lawsuit from Epic Games.

13. Thus, a simple letter to Valve Corporation signed by as many victims of CGSOROLL’s

victims as possible together with pointed reference to Epic Games’ episode can push Valve to

finally permanently ban CGSOROLL from the skins gambling arena. Valve’s previous cease

and desist letters did not do much—but things have changed recently. Law agencies are falling

over themselves to eradicate these scummy sites for good.

14. In December 2023, the Italian Media and Communications Authority (AGCOM) has

hit YouTube and Twitch with fines of €2.5m and €900,000 respectively for allegedly violating

the country’s rules on gambling ads6. Before this, Twitch had already made some half-assed

attempts in this direction. In October 2022, Twitch has imposed a ban on the streaming of high-

profile online gambling websites such as Stake.com. The ban, which officially came into force

on 18 October, prohibits the streaming of slots, roulette and dice games on sites that are either

not licensed in the US, or in other jurisdictions where appropriate consumer protection

standards apply. Outlining its stance, Twitch said sites that don’t offer deposit limits, time-out

6
h;ps://next.io/news/italy-fines-youtube-twitch-gambling-ads/
 6

periods or age verification systems would be outlawed7. Initially, the ban applied to Stake.com,

Rollbit.com, Duelbits.com and Roobet.com. These sites were blacklisted in the Twitch

community guidelines, with more domains likely to be added in the future, as and when

breaches are identified. Linking to the blacklisted sites in the chat box was also banned.

15. Clearly that wasn’t enough—leading eventually to its hefty monetary penalty in

December 2023 by the Italian authorities.

16. In fact, in 2019, Google LLC and its subsidiary YouTube, LLC had suffered the same

fate when it had to pay a record $170 million to settle allegations by the Federal Trade

Commission and the New York Attorney General that the YouTube video sharing service

illegally collected personal information from children without their parents’ consent. The

settlement required Google and YouTube to pay $136 million to the FTC and $34 million to

New York for allegedly violating the COPPA. Before the Epic Games’ scandal, the $136

million penalty was by far the largest amount the FTC has ever obtained in a COPPA case since

Congress enacted the law in 1998.

17. On hindsight therefore, 2019 was the start of the present global mood of legal hyper-

enforcements against these sites—it was however a lumbering progress.

18. Without a doubt, platform giants YouTube and Google would not want a repeat of the

$170 million penalty. Neither would Valve want to be in the sights of the FTC after Epic

Games.

7
h;ps://next.io/news/twitch-gambling-ban-begins/
 7

19. Therefore, in the current climate of hyper vigilance against illegal and scummy sites,

our opportunity to fix CGSOROLL is a simple letter to Valve Corporation— signed by as many

victims of CGSOROLL’s victims as possible together with:

A. a pointed reference to Epic Games’ epic settlement with FTC; and

B. pointed and detailed references to all recent instances of hyper-

enforcement by government authorities, most of which will be

referenced in this report.

20. In a similar vein, to fix the paid influencers of CGSOROLL and its ilk, all that is needed

is a simple letter to platform giants Google, YouTube and Twitch — signed by as many victims

of CGSOROLL’s victims as possible together with:

A. a pointed reference to their previously imposed hefty penalties;

B. compilation of influencers’ videos using sleight of hand and other

dishonest methods to promote CGSOROLL or other unlicenced sites

which carry out sharp and unfair practices. If the influencers have

taken down or privated the videos, make a public call for witnesses

who are prepared to sign statements detailing what they saw on the

videos. Even past posts by redditors can have evidential value on

this point; and

 8

C. a pointed reference to Epic Games’ epic settlement with FTC. This

is necessary as the influencers’ culpability arises from the fraudulent

practices of CGSOROLL and CGSODIAMONDS, to name a few.

21. Across the pond in the UK, law enforcements are also doing their darndest best, albeit

in a more conservative manner by churning out updates to existing laws and new laws and

going on an enforcement spree, faster than you could spell out C-G-S-O-R-O-L-L.

Enactment of the Online Safety Act in 2023

22. (1) On 26 September 2023, the Online Safety Act 2023 was passed into law. This

is a new set of laws that protects children and adults online. It puts a range of new duties on

social media companies and search services, making them more responsible for their users’

safety on their platforms.

(2) The Act covers not just platforms that host paid-for online adverts which

promote “illegal content and activity” but paid-for promoters, i.e. the influencers themselves.

The definition of “illegal content and activity” comes with flexibility but promoting skins

marketplace which is in substance gambling to minors falls squarely into it.

New advertising protections under the Online Safety Act 2023

23. (1) Internet service providers are now required to operate their services using

proportionate systems and processes designed to prevent and swiftly remove fraudulent
 9

advertising. This crackdown will help to make the internet safer, prevent so many people being

duped and increase trust in online transactions.

(2) This new law also requires influencers to declare payment for promoting

products. Failure to make these disclosures could mean that influencers could face higher

penalties for breaching requirements.

Existing Laws that can be used against Our Targets and CSGOROLL—Section 24 and
Part 16 of the UK Gambling Act 2005

UK Gambling Act 2005

24. In the UK, advertising for an unlicenced gambling site or a foreign gambling operator

is outlawed by Part 16 of the UK Gambling Act 2005.

Relevant sections of the UK Gambling Act in Part 16

Section 327: Meaning of “advertising”

802. This section sets out what it means to advertise gambling for the purposes of the Act. The definition is

very broad and covers anything which is done to encourage people to take advantage of facilities for gambling

(subsection (1)(a)). It also covers bringing information about gambling facilities to people’s attention with a

view to increasing the use of those facilities (subsection (1)(b)). As well as covering the activities of those who

act with the specific intention of encouraging the use of facilities for gambling as described in subsection (1)(a)

and (b), the definition also provides for the advertising of gambling to include those who participate in or

facilitate such activities. Advertising includes entering into arrangements such as sponsorship or brand-sharing

agreements.

804. It is an offence under this section to contravene a requirement of the regulations and any person guilty of

an offence shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks (6 months
 10

for Scotland), a fine not exceeding level 58 on the standard scale, or both. An offence committed under this

section shall be treated as a continuing offence which means that an offence shall be committed on each day

during any period that the regulations are contravened.

Section 330: Unlawful gambling

808. This section makes it an offence to advertise unlawful gambling. For these purposes, advertised gambling

is unlawful if it requires a licence, notice, permit, registration or exception under this Act (“a licence etc.”), in

order for the gambling to take place without an offence under the Act being committed, and arrangements for

the licence etc. have not been made at the time of advertising, or the exception does not apply to the

arrangements. Take, for example, facilities for casino gaming which require operating, personal and premises

licences to be obtained in order that the gaming can be provided without an offence being committed. Unless

the necessary licences have been obtained at the time of advertising, any advertising of the gambling will

constitute an offence under this section. The offence covers advertising of unlawful gambling whether the

advertising takes place by remote or non-remote means.

812. A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment

for a term not exceeding 51 weeks for England and Wales (6 months for Scotland), a fine not exceeding level

5 on the standard scale, or both. An offence committed under this section shall be treated as a continuing

offence which means that an offence shall be committed on each day during any period that the advertisement

is displayed or made accessible.

Section 331: Foreign gambling

813. This section makes it an offence to advertise non-EEA (or “foreign”) gambling. Foreign gambling is

gambling which either physically takes place in a non-EEA state (e.g. a casino in Australia), or gambling by

remote means which is not regulated by the gambling law of any EEA state (the interpretation section in Part

18 defines “EEA state”). For the purposes of this section, Gibraltar is treated as if it is an EEA state, which

will allow gambling operators based in Gibraltar to advertise their services in the United Kingdom. The offence

covers advertising of gambling whether the advertising takes place by remote or non-remote means, and

sections 332 and 333 make specific provision about this. This section extends to Northern Ireland.

8
h;ps://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/explanatory-material/magistrates-court/item/fines-and-financial-
orders/approach-to-the-assessment-of-fines-2/9-maximum-fines/
 11

816. The maximum penalty upon conviction for an offence under this section is a term of imprisonment of

51 weeks in England and Wales (6 months in Scotland and Northern Ireland), together with a fine up to level

5 on the standard scale.

820. For remote advertising of gambling to fall within the scope of Part 16 it has to satisfy three tests. In the

case of section 331 (the remote advertising of foreign gambling), it is only the first of the three tests which

has to be satisfied.

821. The first test is broadly that the advertising must be targeted at people in Great Britain. In particular the

advertising must involve:

• providing information intended to come to the attention of a person in Great Britain;[emphasis mine]

• sending a communication intended to come to the attention of a person in Great Britain;

• or making data available with a view to its being accessed by a person in Great Britain or in

Remark: Technically therefore it is necessary to just get one witness from the UK to testify that he or she can

access the influencers’ videos.

822. The second test applies in the case of advertising that is either broadcast by television or constitutes an

information society service within the meaning of Directive 98/34/EC (on electronic commerce). Information

society service means “any service normally provided for remuneration, at a distance, by means of electronic

equipment for the processing … and storage of data, and at the individual request of a recipient of a service”.

Remark: YouTube videos by the influencers would satisfy this test.

826. The third test is that the gambling itself takes place in Great Britain where it is non-remote gambling; or,

where it is remote gambling, that at least one piece of remote gambling equipment is situated in Great Britain.

Remark: the electronic device used by users of CGSOROLL falls within this definition and hence satisfy the

third test.

25. And since Section 24 of the Gambling Act 2005 (“Section 24”) requires gambling

operators selling into the British market to have a Gambling Commission licence to transact
 12

with, and advertise to, British consumers, dodgy sites such as CGSOROLL is both an

unlicensed and a foreign gambling operator.

26. (1) Consequently, Gamefluencers gamfluencers paid by CGSOROLL and its ilk have

repeatedly broken Part 16 of the UK Gambling Act 2005 and CGSOROLL has

repeatedly violated Section 24.

(2) Even if CGSOROLL is spurred to apply for and obtains a licence from the UK

Gambling Commissions (let’s say the information on esports’s website is not up-to-

date), its modus operandi as attested to by many of it victims would implicate Grim

and Gang for serious breaches of the Commission’s Licence Conditions and Codes of

Practice requiring operators to comply with the Advertising Codes, administered by

the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). The Codes aim to ensure that gambling

adverts do not:

• portray, condone or encourage gambling behaviour that is socially

irresponsible or could lead to financial, social or emotional harm.

• exploit the susceptibilities, aspirations, credulity, inexperience or lack of

knowledge of children, young persons or other vulnerable persons.

• suggest that gambling can be a solution to financial concerns.

• link gambling to seduction, sexual success or enhanced attractiveness.

• be of strong appeal to children or young persons, especially by reflecting or

being associated with youth culture.

• feature anyone gambling or playing a significant role in an advert if they

are under 25 years old (or appear to be under 25).9

9
h;ps://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7428/
 13

First UK Criminal Prosecution Of 5 Social Media Influencers Charged In May 2024 For
Paid Online Promotions of Illegal Activities

27. As recent as 17 May 2024, social media influencers with a combined Instagram

following of 4.5 million people were charged in relation to promotions of unauthorised

investments. The City watchdog, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), has charged them

over allegations they were paid to promote the scheme. Those accused include Lauren

Goodger, who rose to fame on reality show The Only Way is Essex, and Biggs Chris who

appeared on Love Island. The FCA had previously warned it would crack down on so-called

"finfluencers" if it considered posts were misleading.

28. This is the first prosecution brought by the FCA against influencers regarding alleged

financial promotion breaches. The FCA has alleged that Emmanuel Nwanze, aged 30, and

Holly Thompson, 33, ran an Instagram account under the handle @holly_fxtrends. The

watchdog said it gave advice on buying and selling investments called contracts for difference,

but without the required authorisation from the regulator to do so. The FCA said that contracts

for difference (CFDs) were high-risk investments used to bet on the price of an asset, in this

case foreign currencies. It said 80% of customers lost money when investing in CFDs because

of the risks.

What Went Down

29. Mr Nwanze allegedly ran the foreign exchange trading scheme and issued unauthorised

financial promotions. The watchdog claims that he paid social media influencers to promote

@holly_fxtrends to their Instagram followers. Love Island’s Jamie Clayton, Rebecca Gormley
 14

and Eva Zapico, Towie’s Yazmin Oukhellou, and Geordie Shore’s Scott Timlin were also

among those charged.

30. The influencers paid by Mr Nwanze and Ms Thompson, together with Mr Nwanze and

Ms Thompson, have also been charged with unauthorised communications of financial

promotions. Mr Nwanze also faces one count of breaching a so-called general prohibition under

the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which prohibits people from carrying out

regulated activities in the UK unless they are authorised to do so. If convicted, they could face

up to two years imprisonment10. The criminal case is currently ongoing.

A Fortiori Our Targets And CSGOROLL

31. CGSOROLL and its gamefluencers gamfluencers can be potentially charged under the

analogous prohibitions in the Gambling Act 2005—the ills sought to be eradicated by the 2

legislations are exactly the same—consumer protection exploitation.

32. In fact, the current enforcement frenzy in both the US and the UK, and elsewhere, vis-

à-vis the intolerable exposure of the underaged to illegal gambling sites reveals an insatiable

appetite to lock up operators of predatory and unscrupulous gambling sites which practise

unfair tactics to steal punters’ money such as preventing withdrawal using arbitrary and opaque

systems and shady processes such as censor chat, as well as their enabling promoters who

receive a generous portion of this stolen money by creating sleight-of -the-hand paid videos

online.

10
h;ps://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/finfluencers-charged-promo>ng-unauthorised-trading-scheme
 15

33. This does indicate that law enforcements in these jurisdictions would be even more

eager to pull the trigger on Nwanzee’s gambling counterparts.

Basis Of Newfound Global Angst Against Unethical Social Media Influencers

34. The UK is pulling out all its ammunitions in its current ongoing blitz to eradicate

scummy unlicensed illegal gambling sites and the top dogs in UK law enforcement know that

they cannot achieve their goal without killing off the enablers of these sites. Scummy sites are

nothing without gamefluencers gamfluencers like Grim & Co—these sites are excluded from

traditional means of advertisement by traditional laws. Thus, without gamefluencers

gamfluencers, they would not have the billions they have today.

35. This diagram perfectly captures the symbiotic11 nature of scummy sites and their paid

gamefluencers gamfluencers12:

11
Actually, a more suitable adjec3ve is parasi3c. Scummy sites are legally and physically separated from their customers by
tradi3onal adver3sing laws and this chasm can only be bridged by internet’s gi> of Gamefluencers gamfluencers.
12
R. Ducato, One Hashtag to Rule Them All? Mandated Disclosures and Design Du3es in Influencer Marke3ng Prac3ces,
CRIDES Working Paper Series no. 4/2019; to be published in Ranchordás, S. and Goanta, C. (Eds), The Regula3on of Social
Media Influencers, 2019, Edward Elgar Publishing, Forthcoming
 16

UK CAP Code

36. UK law enforcement has used its UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising and Direct

& Promotional Marketing (“the CAP Code”) and the Consumer Protection from Unfair

Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs)13 to target gamefluencers gamfluencers.

In the UK and the US (and elsewhere)—Social Media Influencers’ Legal Duty To Disclose
Contractual And Other Relationship With Their Sponsors/Funders

37. The CAP Code provides that when a brand gives an influencer a payment in cash or in

kind, any posts then promoting or endorsing the brand or its products/services become subject

to consumer protection law. Payment means any form of monetary payment; commission; a

free loan of a product/ service; a free product/service (whether requested or received out of the

blue); or any other incentive.

38. This means that whenever an influencer receives a payment from a brand, he/she is

legally mandated to disclose this in any relevant posts (e.g. where an influencer features or

refers to the brand/ product/service in any way or where the content was controlled by the

brand). The same goes for when he/she is doing ‘affiliate marketing’.

39. The CAP Code has tentacles that are comprehensive extended enough to catch many of

our target gamefluencers gamfluencers in their devious arrays of modus operandi. Obviously,

the Code compels not just influencers who are paid a specified amount of money to create

13
h;ps://www.asa.org.uk/sta>c/9cc1^3f-1288-405d-
af3468ff18277299/INFLUENCERGuidanceupdatev6HR.pdf
 17

and/or post a particular piece of content, but it also requires any influencer with any sort of

commercial relationship with a brand, such as being paid to be an ambassador, or given

products, gifts, services, trips, hotel stays etc. for free. When an influencer’s content promotes

particular products or services and contains a hyperlink or discount code that means he gets

paid for every ‘click- through’ or sale that can be tracked back to his content, this counts as

advertising under the Code.

40. Influencers caught within the definitions of the Code must clearly and unequivocally

disclose that they are being paid to promote a service and/or product on the face of the content,

i.e. the disclosure must be visible without the audience having to do anything such as click on

any button or link and such like.

41. It would be impossible to comment on every potential word or phrase that might be

used to identify an ad but – in light of the ASA’s research it’s unlikely that labels other than

those that explicitly and directly call the content what it is, in a way that consumers understand,

will be good enough. Both the ASA and the CMA advise using labels that say it how it is, in a

way that consumers understand e.g.;

• Ad
• Advert
• Advertising
• Advertisement
• Advertisement Feature

Labels like this can be used with or without a ‘#’.

Other labels are riskier, and although it will always depend on the wider content and context,

but influencers are advised to stay away from:

• Supported by/Funded by
• In association with
 18

• Thanks to [brand] for making this possible

• Just @ [mentioning the brand
• Gifted
• Sponsorship/Sponsored

The label also needs to be understood by consumers so the following are not recommended:

• Affiliate/aff
• Spon/sp
• Any other abbrevia?ons/ words that consumers
are unlikely to be familiar with14

42. Needless to say, gamefluencers gamfluencers hate this Code as its requirements do not

gel with their manipulative tactics.

43. The Code’s enforcing authorities had a field day even before the half-mark of 2024.

The Cap Code Vs. 16 UK Social Media Influencers In 2019

44. In 2019, the CMA secured formal undertakings15from 16 celebrities to ensure they will

now say clearly if they have been paid or received any gifts or loans of products which they

endorse. The influential celebrities, with large online followings, who have acted in response

to the CMA’s concerns, include singers Ellie Goulding and Rita Ora, models Alexa Chung and

Rosie Huntington-Whitely, former Coronation Street and Our Girl actress Michelle Keegan

and TV reality stars Millie Mackintosh and Megan McKenna.

45. The CMA’s stance is that online endorsements from celebrities and influencers can help

brands boost sales, as millions of fans follow their social media channels to see where they go

14 hYps://www.asa.org.uk/sta3c/9cc1[3f-1288-405d-af3468ff18277299/INFLUENCERGuidanceupdatev6HR.pdf
15
h$ps://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c474d4840f0b6172bad845e/summary_of_undertakings_for_celeb_endorsements.pdf
 19

on holiday, what they wear, which products they use and more. However, where such stars are

paid or rewarded to promote a product in their social media feeds, consumer protection law

requires them to disclose that they’ve been paid or incentivised to endorse a brand. Otherwise,

they risk giving a misleading impression that a post represents their personal view about a

product or service.

46. Andrea Coscelli, Chief Executive of the CMA, said at the time:

“Influencers can have a huge impact on what their fans decide to

buy. People could, quite rightly, feel misled if what they thought

was a recommendation from someone they admired turns out to

be a marketing ploy.

You should be able to tell as soon as you look at a post if there is

some form of payment or reward involved, so you can decide

whether something is really worth spending your hard-earned

money on.”

The enforcement action taken by the CMA has seen a number of

social media stars pledge to be more transparent when posting

online. It also sends a clear message to all influencers, brands and

businesses that they must be open and clear with their followers.

We will also continue our work to secure more improvement in

this space.

Warning letters have also been sent to a number of other

celebrities, urging them to review their practices where some

concerns have been identified.

Further investigation work will look at the role and

responsibilities of social media platforms.”

[emphasis mine]
 20

47. A breach of these undertakings will lead to criminal and civil prosecution and the CMA

monitors compliance with the undertakings very closely16.

The CAP Code Vs. Rebecca Thompson, Social Media Influencer in 2024

48. In May 2024, in a shocking turn of events, popular social media influencer and reality

TV star, Rebecca Thompson, issued a public apology for her involvement in a recent breach of

UK gambling advertising regulations. The controversy erupted when it was revealed that

Thompson had been promoting online casinos to her followers without disclosing the fact that

she was being paid to do so17.

What Went Down

49. Thompson, who boasts millions of followers on Instagram and Twitter, has built a

lucrative career by collaborating with various brands and promoting products to her dedicated

fan base. However, her latest partnership with several online casinos has landed her in hot

water with UK regulators who have strict rules in place to protect consumers from misleading

advertising practices.

50. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) launched an investigation after receiving

multiple complaints about Thompson’s posts promoting online gambling sites. It was

16
See Paragraph 4.9 of the CAP Code
h;ps://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7f59f6ed915d74e6229eee/cma58-consumer-protec>on-
enforcement-guidance.pdf
17
h;ps://cocoadocs.org/2024/05/15/social-media-star-regrets-promo>ng-illegal-gambling-ads-in-uk-casinos-
issues-public-apology/
 21

discovered that she had failed to clearly label the posts as advertisements, which is a violation

of the UK’s CAP Code that requires influencers to disclose paid partnerships.

3 November 2022—CMA Launched Guiding Principles For Social Media Platforms,

Brands, And Content Creators To Follow So That People Can Easily Spot A Paid-For
Online Endorsement

51. On 3 November 2022, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has published

guidance for social media platforms, brands, and content creators to follow so that people can

easily spot a paid-for online endorsement. The CMA has published compliance principles to

help social media platforms prevent and tackle hidden advertising appearing on their sites. The

principles represent what the CMA considers platforms should be doing to comply with

consumer protection law and requires platforms to be proactive in tackling hidden advertising.

52. The content creators and social media endorsements guidance has updated advice on

how to label commercial content to comply with consumer protection law. The guidance covers

issues such as disclosing gifts, own-brand relationships and the importance of upfront,

prominent disclosures when posting reels, stories or other video content. It builds on and

provides further detail to the requirements of the undertakings given by the 16 influencers in

2019. The CMA monitors compliance with undertakings given to it.

The US Version Of The UK Cap Code— Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Guidelines
For Influencers

53. The US has guidelines that are very similar to the UK’s CAP Code. They are codified
 22

there in Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Guidelines for Influencers18.

54. According to the FTC guidelines, influencers must always make it clear to followers if

a post, video, or statement is in a material partnership with the product’s owner.19 The FTC

defines a material partnership as any of the following:

• Contracts with a business

• Family relationships

• Monetary payments

• Provisions of free products for the influencer

55. The definition of material partnership is very broad, so even if influencers receive a

discount or obtain any kind of benefit from the product owner, this will be considered a material

partnership. There is a good tabulated summary online for what is required under these

guidelines that deserves complete reproduction20.

18
This requirement of disclosure by US and UK authori>es have been adopted by The Interna'onal Consumer
Protec'on and Enforcement Network (ICPEN), formerly the Interna'onal Marke'ng Supervision
Network (IMSN), is a global network of consumer protec>on authori>es which engages in dispute resolu>on
and encourages coopera>on between law enforcement agencies for disputes arising from commerce across
interna>onal borders. Many members are also members of the Organisa>on for Economic Co-opera>on and
Development (OECD) h;ps://icpen.org/sites/default/files/2017-06/ICPEN-ORE-Guidelines for Digital
Influencers-JUN2016.pdf
19
h;ps://www.Lc.gov/system/files/documents/plain-language/1001a-influencer-guide-508_1.pdf
20
h;ps://termly.io/resources/ar>cles/Lc-requirements-for-influencers/ - :~:text=According to the FTC
guidelines, Family rela>onships
 23

Conclusion

54. In conclusion, any attempt to bring down Grim & Co and CSGOROLL& Co has the

likeliest chance to hit jackpot in the current climate and any bet placed in the methods outlined

above has a rigged chance of winning—rigged by an apparent worldwide revival of hate for

scummy unlicensed sites and their obscenely paid gamefluencers gamfluencers, evidenced by

these recent events:

 24

§ On 18 June 2024, Swedish authorities announced that Spelinspektionen, Sweden’s

Gambling Inspectorate, has banned four businesses for targeting consumers with illegal
‘skin’ gambling platforms. Gamevio Ltd, Bigskin Trading Limited, Santeda
International BV, and the website Samilland.co were all found to have been in breach
of Swedish gambling laws, operating “without a necessary licence”. The ban will
become official on 1 April 2025 when the Parliament sits. Like CSGOROLL, Santeda
International B.V accepts deposits from unverified players but do not allow
withdrawals until age- verified. This allows children and teenagers the ability to deposit
and gamble without age checks.

§ On 15 April 2024, the Australian federal government announced that it has engaged a
regulatory advisory business to help it decide whether to implement a total ban on
gambling advertising, almost one year after a bipartisan inquiry into online gambling
harm recommended the measure21.

§ On 25 March 2024, India media reports that India’s Ministry of Information and
Broadcasting (MIB) has warned every social media influencer and endorser to abstain
from advertising and promoting offshore gambling and online wagering platforms
under the guise of gaming and directly and surrogate advertising. In India, gambling
is illegal. Gambling and wagering are rigorously forbidden according to the Public
Gambling Act, issued in 1867, and are regarded non-legal in most regions country-
wide. Regardless of this, online apps and wagering platforms continue to advertise
gambling and wagering under the guise of gaming and directly, according to what the
CCPA commented in a statement22.

§ On 8 March 2024, Hong Kong media reports that HK authorities are being urged to
block the social media of internet celebrities who promote illegal bookmaking or to
amend laws requiring them to declare paid or sponsored content in order to combat

21
h;ps://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/federal-government-enlists-extra-help-as-gambling-ads-
reform-drags-20240411-p5k4l.html
22
h;ps://news.worldcasinodirectory.com/indias-mib-warns-celebri>es-and-social-media-influencers-not-to-
promote-and-adver>se-offshore-online-gambling-and-belng-operators-112698
 25

illegal gambling in Hong Kong. This comes as a growing number of Asian female
internet celebrities are promoting illegal gambling sites, some of which disguise
themselves as online video games23.

§ On 13 February 2024, Lottstift, the Gambling Authority of Norway issued “influencer”

warnings to social media platforms. Lottstift, reiterated that it will take a zero-
tolerance approach to social media platforms promoting online gambling streams and
content. The warning follows the regulator’s ‘serious action’ against Schpell.com for
broadcasting several Norwegian influencers promoting online casino games, infringing
on Norway’s blackout of gambling advertising. Though promoted on Schpell.com’s
portal, the illegal streams were recorded on platforms such as Twitch, Kick, and
YouTube. The platforms were reminded that under Norway’s Broadcasting Act,
gambling advertising is exclusively reserved for the state-owned monopolies Norsk
Tipping (lottery/betting) and Rikstoto (racing). Significantly, social media platforms
have been ordered to stringently police their Norwegian influencer content to
ensure compliance with advertising rules. Lottstift’s Director, Monica Alisøy
Kjelsnes stated that it was clear that influencer live streams were targeting
younger audiences, promoting the offers of unlicensed casinos. Clearly, law
enforcements are placing contributory “vicarious” liability on streaming platforms,
making it clear that any campaign to take down influencers is most effective going after
hosting platforms as they hold the key to obliterating unethical social media
influencers as they hold the power to deny the latter a platform to even be visible.

§ In October 2023, four un-named key sites were geo-blocked in the UK as UKGC

intensifies black market crackdown, having received additional funding to tackle

illegal online gambling in 2021/2224. In his announcement of the blocks, Gambling

23
h;ps://www.thestandard.com.hk/sec>on-news/sec>on/11/261045/Call-to-block-influencers-promo>ng-
illegal-belng
24
h;ps://next.io/news/four-key-sites-geo-blocked-as-ukgc-intensifies-black-market-crackdown/
 26

Commission CEO Andrew Rhodes provided an interesting update on the regulator's

recent enforcement action against the UK's black gambling market25:

- A 46% reduction in traffic to the largest illegal sites targeting the UK

between May and July

- A 500% increase in enforcement actions against black market operators

between 2021/22 and 2022/23

- 17 sites blocked from Google search results through collaboration with the

search engine

- Four of the top 10 illegal domains have had access restricted via geo-

blocking.

§ In May 2023, Online gaming company Feral Holdings Limited was given a formal

warning and its CS:GO Roll website banned from Australia after the company was

found to be providing prohibited interactive gambling services under the guise of video

gaming for prizes of skins26. This decision by the Australian Federal Government is

highly persuasive authority that CSGOROLL’s activities are those of gambling and not

video-gaming.

§ In October 2022, UK officially banned gambling ads featuring sports and reality TV
stars27.

25
h;ps://www.linkedin.com/posts/jakeevansabove_four-key-sites-geo-blocked-as-ukgc-intensifies-ac>vity-
7120044847704485888-3jkR
26
h;ps://www.linkedin.com/posts/australian-communica>ons-and-media-authority_online-gaming-company-
feral-holdings-limited-ac>vity-7064389125205856256-v3HN
27
h;ps://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/apr/05/uk-to-ban-gambling-ads-featuring-sports-and-reality-tv-
stars
27