Golden Gallina

How to play Golden Gallina

To obtain Meta’s approval, the company needs to fill out a form and attach documents proving its operating licence. This same form includes a contract, in the form of an “I accept the terms and conditions” button. In it, the advertiser releases Meta from liability for any violations of the content, including legal or administrative proceedings.

The acceptance and authorisation process is restricted to paid media. Regarding organic content that sells, markets, depicts or promotes online gambling, Meta states, in the restricted products and services section, that it encourages safety, prevents potentially harmful activities and displays content only to those over 18 years of age.

The policies in question do not mention the practice of responsible gaming and do not detail other legal and regulatory obligations. They also do not specify the resources used to validate certifications, monitor licences and content, identify irregular practices and operators, or apply moderation measures. 

About Golden Gallina

The ASA’s ruling 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. Last month, the operator came under scrutiny for an ad that suggested that “gambling was an escape from personal problems”. The ASA received 125 complaints on the offending ad and the company was ordered to remove the advertisement. 

Another June ruling was not upheld.

What is Golden Gallina?

This particular lawsuit involving Fox Financial, one of a growing list IPI is battling, centers on an arrangement the company made with a third party, Forson Holdings. That entity had leased property from Fox in 2016, but fell behind. IPI had signed as a guarantor of that lease agreement and, as such, was responsible for covering Forson in the event payments weren’t made. However, it decided it didn’t need to follow the terms of the contract.

It seems like not a day goes by without IPI coming under fire for something else. The company’s chairwoman, Cui Li Jie, has already found herself in trouble and was previously held in contempt of court, but now has another black mark beside her name. She has been found in contempt again, this time for allegedly perjuring herself in court. A lawyer representing employees suing IPI and Cui produced evidence proving she had lied under oath, and Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona has now agreed. She issued her ruling this morning, with Cui only able to respond, through an interpreter, “I don’t know anything, I don’t understand English.”

The post Ethical questions at IPI lead lawyer to exit as chair held in contempt appeared first on CalvinAyre.com.