While a proposal to implement a national framework around sports betting ads in Canada isn’t quite as far reaching as the one U.S. lawmakers are pushing, it does raise a similar question: Is it warranted? Or better yet: Would it work?
Sen. Marty Deacon filed S-211 in late May. The bill calls for Canada’s federal government to restrict the amount of gambling advertisements on social and traditional media, in addition to tightening other guidelines.
In the U.S. and Canada, local governments — provinces in Canada and states in the U.S. — are tasked with allowing and regulating online gambling. In many cases, particularly in Ontario, gambling advertising guidelines are stringent. In fact, the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (AGCO) revisited its initial guidelines just a year after the April 2022 launch.
In the initial rules, gambling — Ontario’s regulator launched digital sports betting and iGaming simultaneously — prohibited ads directed at minors or that included any real or fictional characters that appeal to minors, as well as ads for promotions, other than on operator platforms. In addition, the use of the words “risk” and “risk free” were banned from advertising.
Less than two years after launch, the AGCO addressed complaints. In February 2024, it rolled out an updated set of rules that strengthened consumer protections and banned the use of athletes (active and retired) and celebrities in online gambling advertising, except for responsible gambling advertising. The revamped rules also clearly banned any kind of outdoor advertising near schools or anywhere that those below the legal gambling age would congregate.
The answer to the question is …
The one question Ontario’s guidelines do not address is the frequency of gambling ads. It’s an issue that has come up in the U.S. as well, but so far only the NFL has put protocols into place around ad frequency. The league has a maximum of six sportsbook ads during a live game.
“We’ve put some policies in place to limit the amount of advertising for sports betting that happens in our live games,” NFL GM for Sports Betting David Highhill told the Associated Press ahead of the 2024 Super Bowl. “It’s roughly one ad per quarter. All told, less than 5 percent of all in-game ads are sports betting ads.”
In April 2023, a group of U.S. pro leagues and national media companies formed the Coalition for Responsible Sports Betting Advertising, which seeks to develop a “responsible” approach to wagering ads. The list of core principles mirrors what many states and Ontario are already doing but does not directly address the frequency of ads.
Lawmakers in Massachusetts toyed with the idea of imposing a limit on the frequency of ads as well, but media companies said their hands were tied in the case of national broadcasts. The attorney general in that state also weighed in on ad limitations, and in 2023 the Massachusetts Gaming Commission amended its rules to prohibit ads on media — social and traditional — platforms for events for which 25% or more of the audience could be expected to be underage. Despite the state’s already strict regulations, Chair Jordan Maynard favors a national framework.
In Canada, Ontario became the first — and so far only — province to craft a framework and launch operators (both sports betting and online casino) in April 2022. Alberta lawmakers passed the iGaming Alberta Act last month, and launch there is expected by the end of the year. Late last week, the provincial government there officially put sections of the bill into effect, but advertising rules have not yet been released. It is expected that Alberta officials will draw from Ontario’s guidelines but likely with their own twist.
Nearly from launch day in Ontario, consumers and others have complained about the number of ads they see during live sporting events.
According to Canada’s Ad Standards Council, it received 113 complaints surrounding gambling ads between April 2023 and April 2024. That number represents almost 10% of complaints filed with the agency. Ninety-three percent of the complaints were related to television advertising. Among the 46% of complaints that were about sports betting in general, versus a particular ad, were complaints about frequency and volume as well as “scheduling during sporting events” that children might see and the “placement of in-program sponsored content by sportscasters.”
In February 2024, a Maru Public Opinion poll in Canada found that 59% of respondents favor a total ban on gambling advertising.
Clearly, consumers are sick of gambling ads. They’re probably also sick of most of the other high-frequency ads, like those for cars, anti-aging serums, or streaming services. During the 2024 Canadian Football League championship game — in which gambling ads reportedly did not crack the top 10 by percentage — according to Media in Canada, 20.1% of advertisements were for telco services (think Disney+ and Paramount), followed by 14% for food restaurants and candy/snacks combined.
But no one is moving legislation to ban any of those.
Senator: We screwed up
Deacon, the author of S-211, said in 2024 during discussion of a previous similar bill, “I wish we had considered at the time the flood of advertising that would go along with it. If you have watched a hockey game or other sporting event in the last two years, you have been subjected to a barrage of advertising encouraging you to a place a bet.
“Networks have teamed up with betting companies or even started their own betting ads. Betting ads adorn the walls and equipment in hockey arenas and football stadiums. Some have even made it onto the uniforms of our teams. This could be a mere annoyance, an irritation for some, if it were not so damaging.”
So Deacon is trying again. The current bill, which got a first reading May 28, is nearly identical to S-263, which got out of the Senate earlier this year, but became moot before the House of Commons could consider it after former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned in January, effectively halting the legislative process. That bill had broad Senate support despite opposition from the CFL.
Both bills would leave much of the decision-making to the Office of the Minister of Canadian Heritage. That office, per the bill, would be tasked with developing a national sports betting advertising framework that would “regulate sports betting advertising in Canada, with a view to restricting the use of such advertising, limiting the number, scope or location — or a combination of these — of the advertisements or to limiting or banning the participation of celebrities and athletes in the promotion of sports betting.”
It would also call for government agencies to share information with regard to the “prevention and diagnosis” of gambling addiction in minors and create a national framework to manage both. The six-page bill leaves much to minister and does not lay out a framework, but rather a guide to building one out.
Deacon suggested during the Senate reading June 3 that restrictions could include what time gambling ads could start or that such ads would not be permitted in the first or last five minutes of a live game.
Cannabis ads banned; why not wagering?
Deacon told fellow senators last week that during the 2023 Stanley Cup playoffs, television viewers were “privy to nine minutes of gambling ads during each game,” had to listen to TV sports personalities rattle off odds, and saw gambling ads “superimposed on the boards.” She also said that those attending live games were encouraged to place parlay bets via the arena loudspeaker.
“The saturation of ads, however, was an issue that should have been dealt with from the start. For instance, Bill C-45, the bill that legalized cannabis, had a provision that banned advertising outright. I regret something similar was not included when single-sports betting was legalized. Perhaps it was the narrow nature of Bill C-218, which simply removed a line from the Criminal Code, that deterred us from thinking bigger at the time.
“We now see a sporting industry very much intertwined with gambling companies and sports broadcasters, some of which have betting companies of their own. As a result, I don’t think it’s hyperbole to say that today in Canada, it is impossible to watch a sporting event without being encouraged to gamble at moments.”
She also said that her initial goal was an all-out ban on gambling ads but decided that might be asking too much and could lead to a protracted court battle. Complete gambling ad bans are unusual. In Europe, Belgium and Italy are the only two countries to impose one.
Not so easy to follow the money
During discussion, Sen. Leo Housakos, leader of the Opposition Party, asked how much an ad restriction would affect what he called an “industry in decline” (media) that relies on advertising revenue.
“I’m going to call it the money piece, the generation of revenue, the generation of income,” Deacon said. “I think when we talk to the folks that are the revenue makers and the conversation we have is a reminder that we’re not banning the gambling and not banning the advertising. When they’re looking at the numbers and the dent this is going to make in their revenue, this is not wiping out these organizations or influencing their bottom dollar as much as one might think.”
In response to a question about making data she referenced during discussion available, Deacon refused to. She also said that she could not provide any sort of information about how sports betting tax dollars are being spent, saying that because wagering is managed at a provincial level, it’s a “difficult feedback piece for us to get right now.”
Should the bill get out of parliament, it appears that it would be at least a year before any kind of guidelines would be implemented. S-211 requires the minister’s office to submit the framework and a plan to implement it to parliament, and each chamber would have to consider it within 15 days. From there, the report would be required to be published on the Department of Canadian Heritage website within 10 days.
The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) would also be required to submit a report after reviewing its rules on gambling advertising. According to the text of the bill, the CRTC would have “to assess their adequacy and effectiveness in reducing the incidence of harms resulting from the proliferation of sports betting advertising.”
Is there an answer to the questions?
So, is a federal gambling advertising framework needed in Canada? The frequency of ads is certainly a hot topic of discussion. But it’s not a leap to suggest that digital sports betting operators will push back, as they have against the SAFE Bet Act in the U.S.
While Canadian provinces are fewer — 10 versus 50 states — they are, per federal law, the arbiters of whether sports betting will exist and how it will look in each jurisdiction. As has been borne out in the U.S., where 39 states plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have legalized, no two legal sports betting jurisdictions are the same.
Tax rates vary. Contributions to problem gambling initiatives vary. The number of operators allowed vary. How the tax money is spent varies. And where and how operators can advertise vary.
In every U.S. jurisdiction, the framework reflects the culture. Just as residents of Massachusetts and Louisiana embrace their own unique value systems, so, too, do residents of Nova Scotia and the Yukon.
A one-size-fits-all law may stem the number of ads, but isn’t addressing that a job for provinces?
