Ontario

## Marketing by Regulated Operators in Ontario AGCO-registered igaming operators in the Province of Ontario are required to abide by the marketing and advertising restrictions in the AGCO Registrar’s Standards for Internet Gaming and the iGO policies enforced by contractual means pursuant to their operating agreements with iGO. In addition to the operators’ accountability for their own compliance with these AGCO and iGO advertising standards, the operators are liable for the acts and omissions of any third parties with whom they contract, including entities commonly referred to as “marketing affiliates”. Responsible gambling is a key AGCO priority that is reflected throughout the marketing and advertising provisions of the Registrar’s Standards for Internet Gaming. As a result, informed play and truthful advertising are principal focuses of the Standards. Additionally, the public advertising of inducements, bonuses and credits is strictly prohibited, including targeted advertising and algorithm-based ads. Such offers may only be provided in two ways: (1) through the operator’s gaming site or application, or (2) through direct marketing to individuals that have consented to receive them on the gaming site. As well, AGCO-registered igaming operators may not employ any “marketing affiliates” that also advertise igaming sites that operate in Ontario without AGCO registration. The AGCO provided guidance on the interpretation of the Standards relating to marketing and advertising at https://www.agco.ca/blog/lottery-and-gaming/mar-2022/important-information-advertising-and-marketing-ontarios-new. The following restrictions apply to all AGCO-registered igaming operators and any third parties with whom they contract for the provision of any aspect of the operator’s business related to gaming in Ontario. Must ensure that advertising and marketing materials and communications do not target high-risk, underage or self-excluded persons, do not include underage individuals, and are not knowingly communicated or sent to high-risk players. This means that at a minimum, they may not: Be based on themes, or use language, intended to appeal primarily to minors. Appear on billboards or other outdoor displays that are directly adjacent to schools or other primarily youth-oriented locations. Contain cartoon figures, symbols, role models, and/or celebrity/entertainer endorsers who would likely be expected to appeal to minors. Use active or retired athletes, who have an agreement or arrangement made directly or indirectly between an athlete and an operator or gaming-related supplier, in advertising and marketing except for the exclusive purpose of advocating for responsible gambling practices. Use individuals who are, or appear to be, minors to promote gaming. Appear in media and venues, including on websites, and in digital or online media, directed primarily to minors, or where most of the audience is reasonably expected to be minors. Exploit the susceptibilities, aspirations, credulity, inexperience or lack of knowledge of all potentially high-risk persons, or otherwise extoll the virtues of gaming. Entice or attract potentially high-risk players. Instead, measures must be in place to limit marketing communications to all known high-risk players. In February 2024, the AGCO issued the following guidance relating to its advertising and marketing restrictions regarding whether a particular cartoon figure, symbol, role model, and/or celebrity/entertainer endorser “would likely be expected to appeal to minors”: The AGCO recognizes the fluid nature of individuals’ appeal to different groups. Given that public interest and appeal is dynamic, registered operators are encouraged to use their judgement to determine whether a particular individual is likely to appeal to minors. Registered operators will be expected to have conducted a credible assessment, using criteria they have established for likely appeal, supported by records and control activities. Among the factors that registered operators should consider when establishing criteria for assessing likelihood of appeal to minors are: The demographic composition of the individual’s following or fan base; An assessment of data on audience demographics; and Whether the individual has obvious or direct links to activities that are popular with minors (e.g., gained or enhanced their notoriety for being in a film that has appeal to children). For the purpose of the Standards, “role models, social media influencers, celebrities and entertainers” include those individuals with a degree of notoriety and/or familiarity who may persuade others. The term “social media influencer” includes individuals active on social media who may be known by different terms (e.g., bloggers, streamers, or content creators). The intent is that persons or characters with a public presence that is likely appealing to minors, regardless of the type of individual, should not be used. Other guidance provided by the AGCO regarding the interpretation of the Standards relating to advertising and marketing may be found at https://www.agco.ca/bulletin/2024/agco-releases-guidance-support-implementation-revised-standard-igaming and https://www.agco.ca/blog/lottery-and-gaming/mar-2022/important-information-advertising-and-marketing-ontarios-new. Must ensure that all marketing, including advertising and promotions is truthful and does not mislead players or misrepresent products. This means that at a minimum, they may not: Imply that playing a lottery scheme is required in order to fulfill family or social obligations or solve personal problems. Promote playing a lottery scheme as an alternative to employment, as a financial investment, or as a requirement for financial security Contain endorsements by well-known personalities that suggest that playing lottery schemes has contributed to their success. Encourage play as a means of recovering past gaming or other financial losses. Be designed so as to make false promises or present winning as the probable outcome. Imply that chances of winning increase: The longer one plays. The more one spends, or Suggest that skill can influence the outcome (for games where skill is not a factor). Portray, suggest, condone or encourage gaming behaviour that is socially irresponsible or could lead to financial, social or emotional harm. Suggest that gaming can provide an escape from personal or professional problems. Portray gaming as indispensable or as taking priority in life; for example, over family, friends or professional or educational commitments, Suggest that gaming can enhance personal qualities, for example, that it can improve self-image or self-esteem, or is a way to gain control, superiority, recognition or admiration, Suggest peer pressure to gamble nor disparage abstention, Link gaming to seduction, sexual success or enhanced attractiveness, Portray gaming in a context of toughness or link it to resilience or irresponsible play, or Suggest gaming is a rite of passage. Offer a product or promotion that is not reasonably attainable without incurring substantial losses. All advertising and marketing materials must contain a responsible gambling message. Public advertising of gambling inducements, bonuses and credits is strictly prohibited, including targeted advertising and algorithm-based ads. Inducements, bonuses and credits may only be communicated in two ways: (1) through the operator’s gaming site or application, or (2) through direct marketing after receiving active player consent. Players must be given an opt-in process whereby they actively consent to receiving any direct advertising and marketing of inducements, bonuses and credits, and must be provided with a method to withdraw their consent at any time. Direct marketing and advertising includes but is not limited to: direct messaging via social media, emails, texts, and phone calls. Where advertising and marketing materials that communicate gambling inducements, bonuses and credits are used in a manner that complies with the Standards, such advertising and marketing must, at a minimum: Disclose all material conditions and limitations of the offer at its first presentation on the gaming site, with all other conditions and limitations no more than one click away. Not be described as free unless the inducement, bonus or credit is free. If the player has to risk or lose their own money or if there are conditions attached to their own money, the offer must disclose those terms and may not be described as free. Not be described as risk-free if the player needs to incur any loss or risk their own money to use or withdraw winnings from the risk-free bet. AGCO-registered igaming operators may not employ any “marketing affiliates” that also advertise igaming sites that operate in Ontario without AGCO registration. ## Marketing Enforcement The AGCO has sanctioned a number of its licensed igaming operators for violation of the Standards relating to marketing and advertising. In May 2022, monetary penalties were issued against BetMGM (CAD $48,000) and PointsBet (CAD $30,000) for engaging in public marketing and advertising that included inducements during the month of April 2022. BetMGM was alleged to have given notice to Ontarians of gambling inducements through its Twitter account: (i) a “$250K Launch Party” advertisement, including a contest offer where the first-place winner was to receive $100K in casino bonus; (ii) a “Bellagio” advertisement, including an offer of a $10 casino bonus in return for a $25 bet; and (iii) a “Jimi Hendrix Free Spin Friday”, including a chance to win 100 free spins in return for following the BetMGM Twitter account. In addition to violating the Standard relating to giving public notice of gambling inducements, BetMGM was alleged to have tweeted out a marketing message deemed to be misleading by the requirements of the Standards, in that it stated that “the more money you put in per bet, the higher your chance is of winning.” PointsBet was alleged to have placed posters on “GO” commuter trains and train stations and in multiple products that included an inducement to play for free. See https://www.agco.ca/blog/lottery-and-gaming/may-2022/agco-issues-monetary-penalties-betmgm-canada-and-pointsbet-canada for further details on these enforcement actions. In June 2022, monetary penalties of CAD $100,000 were issued against DraftKings Canada for engaging in public marketing and advertising that included inducements during the month of May 2022. DraftKings was alleged to have posted and aired multiple broad gambling inducements that included inducements of boosted 2:1 odds, with notice of these inducements having been distributed widely via television and social media channels. See https://www.agco.ca/blog/lottery-and-gaming/jun-2022/agco-issues-100000-monetary-penalties-draft-kings-canada-alleged for further details on this enforcement action. In August 2022, monetary penalties of CAD $48,000 were issued against Unibet for engaging in public marketing and advertising that included inducements during the month of May 2022. Unibet was alleged to have posted or aired multiple broad gambling inducements that promoted “generous welcome offers.” See https://www.agco.ca/blog/lottery-and-gaming/aug-2022/agco-issues-48000-monetary-penalties-unibet-inc-alleged-advertising for further details on this enforcement action. In November 2023, the AGCO levied monetary penalties of CAD $150,000 against PointsBet Canada Operations 1 Inc. for (among other things) ccommunicating gambling inducements, bonuses, or credits through direct advertising without active player consent. As well, despite a player having withdrawn their consent for direct advertising and marketing, PointsBet deposited credits totalling CAD $35,500 on various occasions into the player’s account, and numerous offers of free tickets to sporting events were provided. In June 2025, the AGCO penalized Well Played Media, Unipessoal LDA (operator of the Casino Days website) $54,000 for promoting what the AGCO deemed to be a deceptive bonus on its website. The AGCO alleged that the qualifying terms of the bonus encouraged high-risk gambling behaviour, such that the bonus scheme violated the Standards by (i) portraying, suggesting, condoning or encouraging gaming behaviour that is socially irresponsible or could lead to financial, social or emotional harm; and (ii) offering a promotion that was not reasonably attainable without incurring substantial losses. To qualify for the full welcome bonus of $2,000, the player had to deposit $2,000 of their own money, wager at least $70,000 (35X the deposit), keep each wager at or below $5 and complete all of these wagering requirements within 7 days. An AGCO analysis found that the average player would lose $3,640 in trying to earn the $2,000 bonus. See https://www.agco.ca/en/news/casino-days-penalized-54000-deceptive-and-high-risk-bonus-offer for further details on this instance of enforcement of the Standards in relation to encouraging high-risk player behaviour. In March 2025, the AGCO issued $110,000 in penalties to BetMGM Canada Inc. for engaging marketing companies that offered cash to members of the Ontario public in exchange for opening BetMGM accounts. This was a contravention of Standard 2.05, which prohibits offering gambling inducements, bonuses or credits to the public at large. Such offers can only be made on the operator’s website or through direct marketing to individuals who have given active consent to receiving such communications. Pursuant to Standard 1.19, an operator such as BetMGM is responsible for the actions of third parties with whom they contract, and accordingly BetMGM was responsible for the breach of the Standards committed by the marketing companies it had engaged. See https://www.agco.ca/en/news/agco-issues-110000-penalties-betmgm-canada-offering-cash-induce-new-gambling-customers for further details on this instance of enforcement of the Standards in relation to impermissible marketing of bonuses.

There have been no prosecutions under the Criminal Code of non-local online gambling operators in Canada. The absence of such prosecutions illustrates the current attitude of law enforcement authorities towards non-local online gambling operations. The authorities have evinced no appetite to prosecute such activities, and this attitude has a significant bearing on the risk of prosecution of non-local online gambling operators that accept wagers from persons in Canada. Based upon the lack of reported cases, it would appear more likely than not that, the risk of prosecution is currently low. Indeed, the absence of prosecutions potentially indicates that law enforcement authorities view these activities as being outside their jurisdiction and beyond the purview of the Criminal Code. In 2016, the British Columbia gaming regulator (“GPEB”) sent letters to a number of non-local private operators, which accepted bets from persons in British Columbia, advising that they were conducting and managing gaming and betting operations contrary to the Criminal Code. This was an attempt by GPEB to embarrass and cow these operators into ceasing to accept bets from persons in British Columbia. Other than advising some of these operators’ non-Canadian regulators, no further steps have since been taken by GPEB following up on the allegations made against the non-local private operators in these letters. In the spring and summer of 2023, an organisation calling itself the Canadian Lottery Coalition (the “CLC”) operating through a private sector law firm sent letters (the “CLC Letters”) to a number of non-local private operators, asserting that by operating igaming websites that accepted persons in the ROC as customers, they were acting in violation of the Criminal Code. The original members of the CLC were the British Columbia Lottery Corporation, Alberta Gaming, Liquor and Cannabis Commission, the Atlantic Lottery Corporation, the Manitoba Liquor & Lotteries Corporation and Loto-Quebec. The CLC Letters also alleged that by advertising their igaming services in the ROC, the non-local private operators were contravening the Competition Act by making materially false or misleading representations concerning the legal status of the operators’ igaming activities. The CLC Letters further alleged that the non-local private operators were thereby causing significant harm to the members of the CLC and to their customers in the ROC. The CLC Letters demanded that the non-local private operators [i] cease making their igaming services accessible in the ROC, and [ii] cease all advertising activity in the ROC. In circumstances where the non-local private operators receiving the CLC Letters were also AGCO-registered igaming operators, the CLC Letters alleged that by offering igaming services in the ROC these operators were acting contrary to the Standards. In our view, this was a misconceived notion. There are no AGCO Standards that relate to the activities of an AGCO-registered igaming operator that take place in the ROC. As noted, the CLC Letters were sent by a private law firm acting as counsel for the CLC and not by a provincial law enforcement authority. At that time we wrote that this meant is was likely that if any legal remedies were actually going to be pursued in furtherance of the goals of the CLC, they would be of a civil nature rather than a criminal prosecution. This prediction was borne out in early February 2025, when the provincial gaming corporation of Manitoba (Manitoba Liquor & Lotteries [“MLL”]) applied to a Manitoba court on behalf of the CLC for an injunction to block the offshore online gaming operations of the corporation operating Bodog.eu and its associated free-play site, Bodog.net (collectively, “Bodog”) in Manitoba. The application sought to obtain the following relief from the Court: A declaration stating that Bodog has no lawful authority to offer gambling services in Manitoba or advertise those services within the province; A declaration stating that Bodog’s advertisements, with a particular focus on statements in those advertisements that characterize its platform as legitimate, legal, or safe, constitute misleading representations that contravene the federal Competition Act and Trademarks Act; A declaration stating that Bodog has engaged in tortious conduct by acting as an unauthorized and illegal gambling site in Manitoba; and An injunction against Bodog’s operations and advertising in Manitoba, which in addition to other measures would require Bodog to implement geolocation technology that would enable it to block Manitoba residents from accessing its platforms as required by the injunction. Bodog did not take any action to defend the matter or to dispute any of the allegations of MLL and the CLC. On May 26, 2025, the Court ruled in favour of MLL and the CLC. As a result, Bodog will not be permitted to advertise or accept players in Manitoba. How the Court plans to enforce that decision if Bodog were to choose not to voluntarily comply is not clear. It is important to note that this decision does not have precedential value from the perspective of whether the activities of Bodog (or any other operator) violate the Code or whether they would be within the criminal jurisdiction of the court, as this was not a criminal prosecution where the Court would have been required to apply a higher standard of proof. Even from a civil law perspective, the decision has little or no precedential value because Bodog did not contest the case. All efforts by provincial lottery corporations to exclude igaming operators from markets in the ROC have avoided any attempt to prosecute those operators under the Criminal Code. This leads us to conclude that the provincial governments have serious doubts as to whether such a prosecution would succeed, whether due to a defence based on jurisdictional issues as explained herein or other grounds.