ASA rulings tighten expectations for video games marketing

The question

When do ads for video games and game subscription services need to disclose in-game purchases, and how far does that duty extend?

The key takeaway

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has confirmed that if marketing materials identify particular gaming titles then the existence of in game and random-item purchases in those titles should be disclosed. The existence of in-game and random-item purchases can constitute “material information”, such that their omission may breach the CAP Code rules on misleading advertising. The relevant disclosures do not need to be prominent but should be straightforward to find within the marketing material, for example, at the point where consumers engage with product detail.

The background

Two complaints were made in respect of various ads for video games pursuant to the CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 on misleading advertising.

• The first complaint concerned the Argos Autumn/Winter 2025 Gaming brochure cover (Argos Brochure) and 2025 Argos Christmas Gift Guide (Argos Gift Guide). According to the complaint:

–The Argos Brochure cover featured images of EA Sports FC 26, Borderlands 4 and Sonic Racing: CrossWorlds, but did not disclose that these games contained in-game or random items for purchase.

–An internal page of the Argos Gift Guide featured an image of Call of Duty: Black Ops 7 and said it was available “SOON”, but did not disclose that this game contained in-game items for purchase.

• The second complaint concerned two digital posters for the Xbox Game Pass, which featured images of games available via the subscription service, Tony Hawk’s Pro Skater and Call of Duty: Black Ops 7, but again did not disclose that these games contained in-game items for purchase.

The development

The ASA considered the complaints and determined that information about in‑game or random items for purchase may be material information to consumers, particularly for vulnerable consumers, and should therefore be “easily accessible” and “straightforward to find” in any marketing materials.

Argos

The ASA did not uphold the complaint regarding the cover of the Argos Brochure. It accepted that consumers would see such a cover as “primarily a signpost to content inside” and considered that interested consumers would likely go to the relevant internal page before making a purchase decision. Because the in‑game/random‑item purchase disclosures appeared on the relevant inside page, the ASA found the cover was “unlikely to materially mislead”. However, the ASA upheld the complaint against a page inside the Argos Gift Guide that promoted Call of Duty: Black Ops 7 without stating that the game included in‑game purchases. The ASA considered that the omission deprived consumers of material information needed for an informed decision to purchase the game and therefore breached CAP Code rules 3.1 and 3.3.

Xbox Game Pass

The ASA upheld the complaint in respect of the two digital posters. The ASA considered that naming specific games can make in-game purchase disclosures mandatory. Microsoft argued that the posters marketed the subscription service rather than individual games, and that individual game disclosures were provided at a later point in the customer’s journey through the storefront. They further argued that any still images of gameplay were used as illustrative content only. However, the ASA found that the posters went beyond illustrative gameplay imagery because they were also “naming and highlighting specific, identifiable game titles”. It considered that a consumer’s decision to buy a subscription is likely to be influenced by the games available and whether those games contain items for purchase, which could affect expectations of further spending. The omission therefore breached CAP Code rules 3.1 and 3.3.

Why is this important?

These rulings indicate the ASA will treat in‑game purchase disclosures as potentially material, not only in ads for particular games but also in ads for subscriptions, bundles and other aggregated content, especially if specific titles are referenced. This includes where relevant pricing and content details are provided later on in the consumer journey. Further, the rulings indicate that the ASA takes into account how consumers with specific vulnerabilities may be impacted, suggesting a higher standard of compliance is required.

Games and platforms running dynamic, personalised or frequently refreshed ads may encounter additional risks if those ads name specific titles. The ASA’s slightly different approach to “signposting” between the two decisions also suggests that the ASA’s assessment may be context‑sensitive with reference to the type of product being marketed in the ad.

Any practical tips?

• Games retailers, including app stores, web stores, and subscription services, should audit ad templates and brand guidelines to ensure that whenever identifiable game titles appear, there is a reliable mechanism to surface in-game purchases, random-item purchases, and other relevant content or pricing information.
• Games developers should ensure that information for such disclosures is readily available to provide to product and marketing teams (internally and externally).
• Product and marketing teams should consider when and where in the customer’s journey this information should be surfaced, distinguishing between placements that are merely “signposting” (eg brochure covers/top-level landing pages) and placements that are more likely to form a part of the customer’s transactional decision-making (eg marketing material for a product page or product tile).
• Relevant marketing and in-house legal teams should document the disclosure standard in creative briefs and QA checklists so that omissions are treated as launch‑blocking defects rather than post‑launch fixes.

Autumn 2026