Philippine Gambling Advertising Ban Could Widen Offshore Enforcement Gap, Lawyers Warn

A proposed nationwide prohibition on gambling advertising in the Philippines could place the greatest burden on licensed gaming operators while doing little to curb promotional activity by offshore and illegal gambling platforms, according to two gaming lawyers.

Russell Stanley Geronimo, founder of Geronimo Law, told AGB that legislation enacted at the national level could establish advertising restrictions extending beyond operators licensed by the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR). Such legislation, however, would not resolve the jurisdictional difficulties Philippine authorities face when attempting to take action against gambling companies operating from abroad.

“A total ban silences licensed operators while illegal platforms continue promoting through SMS blasts, private messaging, and affiliates,” Geronimo said. “That’s the tradeoff.”

Gaming lawyer Tonet Quiogue expressed a comparable concern in an article published by Arden Consult. She argued that an across-the-board prohibition on gambling advertising could unintentionally drive Filipino consumers toward offshore websites that already operate outside the country’s regulated framework.

Two proposed measures take different approaches

The issue is currently being addressed through two separate legislative proposals, although the bills differ considerably in scope.

Senator Francis “Chiz” Escudero filed Senate Bill No. 2347, known as the proposed Gambling Advertising Prohibition Act, on July 26. Rather than concentrating exclusively on internet-based gambling, the Senate measure seeks to regulate gambling advertising more broadly.

SB2347 would prohibit gambling advertising and sponsorship across a wide range of channels, including television, radio, newspapers and other print media, outdoor advertising, websites, online platforms and social media. The proposal would also prohibit endorsements by celebrities and influencers.

A separate measure in the House of Representatives takes a more limited approach. House Bill No. 10982, introduced by Cebu 3rd District Representative Karen Hope Garcia on August 26, focuses specifically on advertising, promotion and sponsorship connected with online gambling.

One important distinction is that Garcia’s proposal would leave advertising for licensed land-based casinos outside the prohibition.

Current regulatory controls primarily affect the legal market

Geronimo said the Philippines already has mechanisms governing gambling advertising, but those controls largely operate within the regulated market.

PAGCOR directives apply to its licensees and accredited service providers. The Ad Standards Council (ASC), meanwhile, operates as a private self-regulatory organisation. Its advertising standards apply to ASC members and businesses that voluntarily submit advertising materials for review and screening.

The ASC does not possess the authority to impose fines or prosecute companies that are not members. Nevertheless, its clearance process has practical and indirect legal significance for PAGCOR-licensed operators because the regulator requires advertising approvals and may sanction licensees that attempt to circumvent the established procedures.

The situation is substantially different for offshore or unlicensed operators, particularly those using digital advertising networks and direct communication channels.

“For offshore platforms and unlicensed operators advertising through programmatic networks, social media, or SMS, the circular is unenforceable,” Geronimo said. “Those channels bypass the media gatekeepers entirely.”

Foreign operators present the central enforcement challenge

Geronimo said SB2347's status as a general penal law could potentially bring Philippine-based advertisers, advertising agencies, publishers and influencers within its reach even when they are not connected to the PAGCOR licensing system.

The more difficult question concerns individuals and businesses physically located outside Philippine territory.

“Direct penal enforcement against persons outside the territory is largely theoretical, since Philippine criminal jurisdiction is territorial,” Geronimo said.

The location of the advertiser would not necessarily protect Philippine-based individuals involved in promoting offshore gambling businesses. Advertising aimed at Filipino consumers would still be subject to Philippine law where the relevant activity takes place within Philippine jurisdiction, regardless of whether the advertisement complies with the advertising policies of companies such as Google.

Local influencers who promote offshore gambling brands could similarly be exposed to liability where their promotional activity occurs within Philippine jurisdiction.

Foreign operators themselves, however, would present a considerably harder enforcement problem. Beyond international cooperation, authorities would have fewer direct tools available and could instead seek to disrupt access to offshore gambling websites and the domains used to serve their advertisements.

Geronimo identified payment controls as potentially the most effective means of weakening the offshore market.

“Payment interdiction is the most effective lever, because the advertisement is pointless if the Filipino user cannot fund an account,” Geronimo said.

Lawyers warn of possible impact on market channelization

Quiogue has also raised concerns that a complete advertising prohibition could undermine the progress made in moving Filipino gamblers from illegal operators into the regulated market.

‘A prohibition binds only licensed operators; the offshore sites that already advertise illegally to Filipinos keep their channels and inherit the audience,’ Quiogue wrote.

Her argument is that the regulated market has gained ground partly through measures such as reduced licensing costs, enhanced customer-verification requirements and greater efforts to enforce restrictions against illegal gambling websites.

Quiogue referred to testimony from PAGCOR as well as private estimates suggesting that the proportion of online gambling activity associated with licensed operators has increased since 2022.

Those figures should nevertheless be treated with caution. The estimates rely on different methodologies and cannot be regarded as equivalent to transaction data directly recorded by the regulator.

Quiogue also drew comparisons with European jurisdictions where tighter gambling advertising restrictions have been accompanied by concerns about the continued presence or growth of illegal gambling. The international examples do not demonstrate that advertising restrictions themselves caused increases in illegal gambling, but Quiogue argued that they illustrate the importance of maintaining visible and identifiable legal gambling channels.

Broad definitions could affect responsible-gaming initiatives

Another issue raised by Geronimo is the way any new law defines terms such as advertising, promotion and sponsorship.

Depending on the wording ultimately adopted, a broad prohibition could potentially extend beyond conventional advertisements encouraging consumers to gamble.

Corporate branding arrangements, jersey sponsorships and naming-rights deals could potentially be affected. Even responsible-gaming campaigns carrying the branding of licensed operators might fall within the scope of the legislation if the definitions are drafted too broadly.

Geronimo said lawmakers should therefore distinguish between commercial communications intended to encourage gambling and information serving a legitimate public-interest or regulatory purpose.

The final legislation, he argued, should also accommodate communications that licensed operators are required to provide under regulatory obligations.

Lawyers call for differentiated liability

Geronimo also urged lawmakers to avoid treating every participant in the advertising ecosystem as equally responsible for an unlawful advertisement.

“On liability, exposure should be graded by proximity and knowledge,” Geronimo said.

In his view, the greatest responsibility should rest with operators, advertisers, agencies and affiliates that knowingly create, commission or place paid gambling material.

Celebrities and influencers should likewise face liability when they knowingly participate in paid promotional campaigns, he said.

Publishers, by contrast, could be given a due-diligence defence where they reasonably relied on apparently legitimate advertising clearances. Digital platforms and other intermediaries should not automatically be held responsible simply because unlawful material appeared through their systems.

Instead, Geronimo argued that intermediary liability should arise where the relevant party has actual knowledge that an advertisement violates the law or fails to take appropriate action after receiving notice of the violation.

He also called for safeguards surrounding government orders to remove or block gambling-related material.

Geronimo said takedown and blocking measures should be issued by a clearly identified authority through written decisions, while affected parties should receive notice and have an opportunity to challenge those decisions.

The debate over SB2347 and HB10982 therefore extends beyond whether gambling advertisements should be prohibited. At stake is also the question of whether a ban would meaningfully reduce gambling activity or instead restrict the regulated industry while leaving offshore operators with many of the same promotional channels they already use to reach Philippine consumers. 

By fLEXI tEAM