jili tutorial

ASA upholds complaint against Midnite over AI-generated character in TikTok ad

By jili tutorial · September 18, 2026

Overview of Recent ASA Rulings on Gambling Advertising

The UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has issued two significant rulings concerning gambling ads, highlighting the regulator’s tightening enforcement on age-related depictions, affiliate liability, and audience targeting. In one case, an AI-generated character in a TikTok promotion for Midnite was deemed to appear under 25, violating the CAP Code. In another, ads for White Hat Gaming’s casino brands on an e-sports website were cleared after investigation. This guide breaks down each ruling, explains the regulatory context, and provides actionable takeaways for advertisers.

Case 1: Midnite’s AI-Generated TikTok Ad

The Advertisement and ASA’s Complaint

In July, a paid TikTok advertisement promoted Midnite, a Gibraltar-based online casino app. The clip featured a young-looking man using the app, with a 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.”

The ASA investigated whether the ad breached rule 16.3 of the CAP Code (Edition 12), which states that gambling ads must not depict anyone who “was, or seemed to be, under 25 years of age” gambling or playing a significant role.

Why the ASA Ruled Against Midnite

The regulator concluded that the central figure’s youthful facial features, casual styling, and excited demeanour gave the impression he was in his late teens or early twenties. Despite the character being AI-generated, the ASA judged that the ad still “seemed to be under 25,” and therefore violated the code.

Key factors in the ruling:

Affiliate Responsibility and Midnite’s Response

Midnite’s operator, Dribble Media Ltd, stated that the ad was not authorised by the company. They identified discrepancies in branding and argued that the ad was created and disseminated by an affiliate, Limay Media Ltd, without Midnite’s approval. Midnite confirmed it had terminated its contract with Limay and would reinforce compliance reminders to its partners.

Limay Media admitted that the person depicted was an AI-generated fictional character rather than a real individual. The company claimed the design was intended to appear as an adult, but acknowledged lapses in its internal approval process. They described the error as isolated and noted the ad was removed within a few hours.

Limay reported implementing new safety measures for AI-generated gambling creatives, including specifying age-related prompts and reviewing the perceived age of AI outputs. However, the ASA determined these measures were insufficient because the prompts did not explicitly require the character to appear aged 25 or over, and there was no independent verification.

ASA’s Directive and Midnite’s Previous Rulings

The ASA directed both Dribble Media and Limay Media to ensure the offending advertisement would not be redisplayed in the same form. This is Midnite’s third ASA ruling this year:

Broader Implications for AI-Generated Gambling Ads

This ruling sets a precedent for advertisers using synthetic characters. The key takeaway: AI generation does not exempt ads from age-related rules. Advertisers must:

Case 2: White Hat Gaming’s Display Ads on HLTV.org

The Advertisement and Complaint

In a separate case, the ASA examined display advertising for White Hat Gaming’s Casimba and The Grand Ivy Casino brands. Two banner ads promoted a “100% match bonus up to £100 on 1st deposit” and displayed the mandatory 18+ logo. These ads appeared on HLTV.org – a specialist Counter-Strike 2 e-sports website – in March 2026. The ads were placed alongside live match coverage featuring betting odds and sponsor logos, including a link to Casimba’s website.

A complaint suggested that such placements were inappropriately targeted at under-18s.

White Hat Gaming’s Defence

White Hat Gaming paused the ads during the investigation. They argued that HLTV’s audience is primarily adult and focused on professional competitive gaming rather than casual play, which tends to attract minors. HLTV corroborated this, highlighting its editorial tone as adult-oriented.

ASA’s Assessment of Audience Targeting

The ASA reviewed whether the ads were directed at under-18s through their placement or content. Its rules prohibit advertising through media where more than 25% of the audience is likely to be under 18.

While the audience data did not conclusively define the website’s age demographics, the ASA noted:

Ruling: No Breach

The ASA ruled that the ads did not breach CAP Code rules 16.1 or 16.3.13 and took no further action. This outcome highlights the importance of:

Key Regulatory Lessons for Gambling Advertisers

AspectMidnite CaseWhite Hat Gaming Case
Ad element in questionAI-generated character agePlacement on e-sports site
Rule violatedCAP 16.3 (under-25 depiction)None (audience not under-18)
LiabilityShared between operator and affiliateOperator cleared
ASA actionUphold complaint, ban adNo further action
Preventive measure neededAge verification for AI outputs; affiliate complianceAudience data due diligence

Summary of CAP Code Rules Referenced

Both rulings reinforce that the ASA will hold advertisers accountable for the final creative and placement, regardless of whether the content is AI-generated or produced by affiliates.

Conclusion

The ASA’s rulings against Midnite and White Hat Gaming demonstrate the evolving regulatory landscape for gambling advertising. Advertisers must now:

Failure to do so risks ASA enforcement, reputational damage, and potential legal costs. As the use of AI in advertising grows, regulators are likely to scrutinise how well technology complies with existing rules – and these rulings provide clear guidance on where the line lies.