The Negative Keyword List Was Not a Defence

On 28 October 2026 the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) upheld a complaint against Optival Ltd (trading as bestbookiesandbettingsites.co.uk), reference A26-1351521, for an advertisement that appeared after a search for the term "self exclusion bookies".

The Advertiser Had the Keyword Blocked

Optival Ltd told the ASA that they had not submitted a bid for the term "self exclusion bookies", providing a screenshot from Google Ads search term reports to back this up, and said that they maintain negative keyword lists covering self exclusion, problem gambling and GamStop and attributed this instance to an isolated case due to automatic query matching on the Google Ads platform. Optival Ltd said that this case was below reporting thresholds and offered to expand their negative keywords across existing and future campaigns. None of that was enough.

Being an Affiliate Was Not a Defence Either

The ASA said that the advertisement was inappropriate because it was being served to people, including vulnerable people, who were searching for help with gambling and wanted to limit their exposure to gambling.

Although the site is an affiliate comparison service rather than an operator, the ASA found the ad still had "the effect of promoting online betting sites and bookmakers". Optival was expected to have stringent controls against inappropriate targeting given the potential harms associated with gambling promotion. The Code requires particular regard to "the need to protect vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited".

The ASA says that although the comparative list and the statement that it would be expanded were acknowledged, the ad should not have appeared, as there is an expectation that sufficient safeguards are in place to ensure this does not happen. The ASA says that since the search query was one where a person was seeking to limit their gambling exposure, the targeting controls were not robust enough. Someone searching that phrase was likely "seeking information, advice and support" about limiting their play, and an ad promoting "the Best Welcome Bonus Offers" did not belong there.

What the Ruling Actually Requires

The breach is CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.3, social responsibility: the ad "had not been responsibly targeted".

The remedy is narrow in wording and wide in implication. The ASA says the ad should not appear again on this search term, and Optival needs to make sure its search engine marketing is targeted appropriately: it "must not be served following the search ‘self exclusion bookies’ again".

There is no fine, because the ASA does not levy them; its sanction is publication of the ruling itself. There are no associated revenues given, nor is there any information on the number of times the ad appeared or a list of the Top 15 bookmakers the site ranks. Google, whose broad matching the advertiser blamed, is not quoted.

Why Affiliates Should Read It Twice

The duty sits with the party buying the keyword, not the party holding the licence, and an automated match by the ad platform is the advertiser’s problem. A negative keyword list, a screenshot, and an offer to do better did not answer the complaint after the fact.