The small print, and what has to travel with a claim
The conditions band and the mandatory warning are two different documents, written for two different audiences. One protects the advertiser, one protects the reader, and both are usually set at the size the rules permit rather than the size the message needs.
The three things that travel with an advert
- The conditions bandThe qualifying words of the offer: the wagering requirement, the eligibility, the time limit, the game weighting, the maximum cashout. Its legal job is to make the claim not misleading; its practical job is to be unreadable without being arguable.
- The compliance markAn 18+ sign and, where required, a reference to a support organisation. Small, fixed, and not optional. It is the only part of an advertisement that is there for the reader’s benefit alone.
- The disclosure of who is payingRequired in some markets, voluntary in most. Where an advert is a paid link rather than a bought placement, this is the line that tells the reader whether the recommendation has been purchased — and it is the line the reader is least likely to find.
The conditions: set at 10px on one line → 10px.
Ratio of type height: 96 ÷ 10 = 9.6 : 1 in favour of the claim.
Area is worse than the ratio suggests, because the claim runs the full width of the panel while the conditions are set in a block at one edge.
A rule requiring comparable prominence is asking for that ratio to be closed, not for the text to be present. Whether it has been closed is the whole dispute, and it can be reasoned about with a ruler — which is why the same argument repeats in every ruling on the subject.
Prominence is not a feeling. It is a comparison between two things on one surface, and it is the only part of advertising regulation that a reader can audit from a photograph.
Why the warning is the part worth defending
Everything else on an advertisement exists because the advertiser chose to make a claim. The warning exists because the claim was made. It is not a condition of the offer, not a term, and not something the reader can trade away — it is the market’s admission that the product on the other side of the advert carries a risk that the advert’s own copy is structurally unable to describe.
That is why its size is worth noticing. A warning reduced to the smallest permitted rendering has been technically complied with and functionally removed, which is a distinction the rules have historically handled badly and which the reader has to hold themselves.
The disclosure line, which most adverts do not have
The third element is the odd one out because it is about the advertiser rather than the offer. Where a business is paid to recommend a product, several markets now require that the payment be disclosed. Where it is not required, the disclosure is a choice — and the choice is visible. A page that tells you it is paid does not thereby become trustworthy, but a page that carries a strong claim, no conditions and no funding line has told you something too.
This desk’s own layout carries all three in the same place on every page: the conditions-shaped prose, the 18+ mark and the risk warning, and the affiliate disclosure naming the arrangement. None of it was mandatory for a page of this kind.