MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392372900 · doi:10.1111/add.16458

Gambling advertising still exists in Belgium despite a widely reported ‘ban’

2024· letter· en· W4392372900 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Steffi De Jans, Liselot Hudders, Philip Newall

Bibliographic record

VenueAddiction · 2024
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
KeywordsAdvertisingPopularityBusinessOnline advertisingPolitical scienceThe InternetLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gambling advertising is omnipresent worldwide, particularly within professional sports. This has raised concerns among the public, policymakers and academics [1-3], and some countries have, therefore, begun to restrict gambling marketing. Belgium is one of the first countries to 'ban' gambling advertising in 2023 [4] and has urged other jurisdictions to follow [5]. Belgium has also recently 'banned' gambling-like loot boxes in video games, but without any meaningful effectiveness [6]. This letter highlights how the advertising 'ban' similarly allows gambling advertising to exist in various forms. Although often presented as a general ban in the media [7, 8], Belgium's new gambling advertising regulation intends to ban all advertising forms, but includes a list of advertising forms that are explicitly permitted. The regulation prohibits forms of gambling advertising that enjoy worldwide popularity such as TV, social media and radio advertising, as well as direct mail, email or text message marketing [9-11]. Gambling sports sponsorship is frequent in Belgium as it is elsewhere [2, 12, 13], and transitional arrangements are taken to ban most sport stadium sponsorship from 2025 and gambling shirt sponsorship only from 2028. Nevertheless, the regulation allows operators to still advertise to individuals who express their interest in gambling. As such, advertising is, for instance, allowed when consumers actively seek gambling-related content, by using gambling-related keywords in online search engines. Belgian gambling operators are, therefore, investing significantly in search engine advertising since the ban (see Figure 1 for an example). Gambling operators can also still advertise on their own channels, such as their websites and social media profiles, but notably under certain rules. Although sports sponsorships are restricted, gambling operators will still be able to sponsor amateur sports clubs, with one gambling operator recently announcing that it will provide 100 local sports clubs with free jerseys. Importantly, lottery products are exempt from the ban as they fall under a different regulation, and this allows the State Lottery to continue advertising their lottery products (but not their other gambling products) [14]. In light of the new regulation, gambling operators are actively seeking alternative strategies or loopholes, beyond the scope of the regulation, to enhance brand visibility. First, gambling operators are increasingly communicating about their corporate social responsibility activities on their channels to create media coverage—therefore, using a loophole that has also been used by the tobacco industry [15]. For instance, they have communicated about their sponsorship of charitable causes, which could be perceived as 'cause-washing' [16] and they have set up foundations within sports clubs. They have also organized free prize-draws that do not require a gambling account to enter, started sports podcasts and started providing live streaming of sports matches on their websites to drive traffic to their websites. These are just the novel tactics that we have observed thus far and which could be added to in future. Although it is promising that most gambling advertising has disappeared from public eye, there is no total ban on gambling advertising yet, meaning that gambling advertising still exists in Belgium. Steffi De Jans: Conceptualization (equal); funding acquisition (lead); writing—original draft (equal). Liselot Hudders: Conceptualization (equal); writing—original draft (equal). Philip Newall: Conceptualization (equal); writing—original draft (equal). None. S.D.J. has conducted research funded by the Belgian Federal Ministry of Justice and BELSPO. L.H. has conducted research funded by the Belgian Federal Ministry of Justice and BELSPO. P.N. is a member of the Advisory Board for Safer Gambling—an advisory group of the Gambling Commission in Great Britain and in 2020 was a special advisor to the House of Lords Select Committee Enquiry on the Social and Economic Impact of the Gambling Industry. In the last 3 years, P.N. has contributed to research projects funded by the Academic Forum for the Study of Gambling, Clean Up Gambling, Gambling Research Australia, NSW Responsible Gambling Fund and the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation. P.N. has received travel and accommodation funding from Alberta Gambling Research Institute and the Economic and Social Research Institute and received open access fee funding from Gambling Research Exchange Ontario.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.117
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAddictionSame topicGambling Behavior and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207