The UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) recently ruled that it would not uphold complaints against the "action figure advertisement" posted on Facebook by the Buzz Bingo Grimsby store. The ASA considered that the advertisement content is unlikely to have a particular appeal to those under 18, thus not breaching relevant advertising standards.
The controversial advertisement was published on April 12, featuring a style mimicking action figure packaging, depicting a female character standing inside, with the box labeled "[Name] Action Figure" and equipped with bingo cards, pens, and numbered balls as props. This design draws inspiration from the current trend on social platforms of AI "starter packs," where people combine elements related to their hobbies or professions into anthropomorphized character images.
The accompanying text reads: "Limited time offer Buzz Bingo action figures 😂 Only available at Buzz Bingo Grimsby! 👀 Terms apply […] Together, safe […] 18+ only." and includes a link to a gambling responsibility reminder.
Despite two complainants pointing out that the advertisement might attract minors' attention, Buzz Group responded that the image was not of a celebrity but drawn based on the store manager, dressed in regular office attire, without using bright colors or exaggerated cartoon styles.
After review, the ASA considered the overall style of the image "realistic rather than cartoonish," with no prominent character features, minimalist attire, and low saturation colors, lacking the appealing elements commonly found in children's toy advertisements. The ASA noted: "The character in the image is an adult, with no significant exaggerated features, nor is it a character familiar or common to children." Additionally, this Facebook page is controlled by age restrictions, accessible only to users over 18.
In contrast, the ASA had supported complaints against the Ladbrokes "Ladbucks" advertisement in June of the same year, considering its content indeed appealing to teenagers. However, the Buzz Bingo advertisement did not pose a similar risk, thus no further intervention was necessary.
