Free bets are not free: first causal evidence links gambling marketing to real harm

University of Bristol / Central Queensland University

Naman Jawaid placed his first bet at 18 after seeing a television ad offering a free wager. The initial stake was 10 pounds. Within a few years, he was betting 2,000 pounds a day on average, funding his addiction through financial crime, and heading to prison. The free bet was never free.

His story is one data point. But a new randomized controlled trial - the first of its kind - now provides systematic evidence for what people like Jawaid have long insisted: direct marketing from gambling companies does not just encourage betting. It causes measurable harm.

23% more bets, 39% more money, 67% more harm

The study, published in Addiction, was led by Central Queensland University in Australia in collaboration with the University of Bristol in the UK. Researchers monitored 227 people in Australia - predominantly men with an average age of 45 who bet regularly on sports and races - over a two-week period.

Participants were split into two groups: those who continued receiving direct marketing from their gambling accounts (emails, push notifications, text messages, free bet offers) and those who opted out. The differences were stark.

Gamblers who did not receive direct marketing placed 23% fewer bets and spent 39% less money than those who remained exposed. But the most striking gap appeared in harm measures: those who opted out of marketing reported 67% fewer short-term gambling harms, including reduced distress related to their betting.

These are not correlations. Because the study used a randomized design - the gold standard in research methodology - the differences can be attributed to the marketing itself rather than to pre-existing differences between groups.

The policy gap the UK government cited

The timing matters. In 2023, the UK Government published a white paper on gambling that argued there was little need to regulate marketing because no causal link had been established between gambling advertising and harm. That argument rested on the absence of evidence - not on evidence of absence.

Co-author Dr. Philip Newall, Senior Lecturer in Psychology at the University of Bristol, is direct about the implications. The research fills precisely the gap the government identified. A causal link now exists, demonstrated under controlled conditions with real gamblers using real accounts.

Newall also sees no reason to limit the findings to direct marketing. If personalized emails and push notifications increase harm, there is every reason to expect that television advertising and social media promotion produce similar or greater effects, given their broader reach. That question has not yet been tested with the same rigor, but the direction of evidence points one way.

How the marketing cycle traps people

Jawaid's experience illustrates the mechanism. Once a gambler opens an account, the company gains access to detailed behavioral data: what they bet on, when they bet, how much they spend, and crucially, when they stop. If a customer has not placed a bet in a few days, a targeted offer arrives - a free bet, a boosted odds promotion, a cashback deal - designed to re-engage them at precisely the moment they might have been pulling away.

This is not passive advertising. It is a personalized intervention timed to interrupt any natural cooling-off period. For someone struggling with compulsive gambling, it functions as a trigger delivered directly to their phone.

Jawaid, who now works as a research project coordinator for GamLEARN, a charity supporting people in the criminal justice system with gambling-related issues, describes seeing the same pattern among the people he works with. People who are actively seeking help and trying to stop gambling continue receiving daily incentive messages from the companies they are trying to leave behind.

Two weeks, 227 people, and the limits of scale

The study has real limitations that are worth stating plainly. The sample is small - 227 participants - and the monitoring period was only two weeks. Two weeks is long enough to detect short-term behavioral changes and immediate harms, but it cannot tell us about long-term patterns. Do the effects compound over months and years? Do they diminish as novelty wears off? We do not know yet.

The participants were predominantly male, sports-betting adults in Australia with an average age of 45. Whether the same effects apply to younger gamblers, women, or people who primarily use online casinos or slot machines remains untested. The gambling landscape also differs by country - regulatory environments, marketing practices, and cultural attitudes toward betting vary considerably between Australia, the UK, the United States, and other markets.

The study examined opt-in versus opt-out for direct marketing only. It did not test the effect of gambling advertising on television, social media, or through sponsorship deals. Those are distinct channels with different mechanisms of influence, and they require their own research.

Finally, the study was funded by Gambling Research Australia, an independent body, but the broader political context around gambling research - where industry funding has historically shaped what gets studied and published - means transparency about funding sources always matters.

From evidence gap to regulatory question

Lead author Professor Matthew Rockloff, Head of the Experimental Gambling Research Laboratory at CQUniversity, frames the implications clearly: the study provides evidence that direct gambling marketing increases harm, and it strengthens the case for tighter regulation - potentially a complete ban on direct marketing to gambling account holders.

The research arrives at a moment when gambling regulation is under active debate across multiple countries. The UK is implementing reforms following its 2023 white paper. Australia has been considering advertising restrictions. Several U.S. states are grappling with the rapid expansion of legal sports betting and the marketing blitz that accompanies it.

For Jawaid, the argument is straightforward. He has self-excluded from all marketing and found a way forward. But he knows the system has not changed for the people coming after him. Something, he says, needs to happen to stop it.

This study suggests he is right - and now there is data to back it up.