Gambling Advertising in Canada: Why Bill S-211 Matters — and What Should Come Next

Gambling Advertising in Canada: Why Bill S-211 Matters — and What Should Come Next

Gambling advertising has become increasingly difficult to avoid. For many Canadians, gambling promotion now appears not only in traditional advertisements, but throughout sports broadcasts, social media, streaming services, digital entertainment, sponsorships, and direct promotional messages.

For someone who is experiencing gambling-related harm or trying to reduce or stop gambling, this can create a difficult environment: avoiding gambling itself may be possible, while avoiding messages encouraging gambling can be considerably harder.

As a gambling counsellor, I have seen how this environment can affect people who are trying to make meaningful changes in their lives. I support Bill S-211 as an important first step toward addressing sports betting advertising in Canada. At the same time, I believe the development of this framework should be the beginning of broader action rather than the conclusion.

A clinical perspective on gambling advertising

My perspective on this issue comes primarily from frontline clinical work with individuals experiencing gambling-related concerns and people affected by another person's gambling.

Clients have described gambling advertising as constant, intrusive, and difficult to escape. I have supported clients who identified advertising or promotional offers as contributing factors in lapses or returns to gambling. Others have described giving up watching sports or paying additional subscription fees to reduce their exposure to gambling advertisements.

These experiences do not mean that advertising is the sole cause of gambling behaviour. Gambling-related difficulties are complex and involve multiple personal, social, and environmental factors.

However, advertising and promotional incentives can still be meaningful triggers for someone who has already recognized gambling-related harms and is attempting to change.

When advertising becomes difficult to escape

The gambling environment has changed considerably.

A person attempting to reduce or stop gambling may encounter gambling promotion while watching a sporting event, scrolling through social media, using a streaming service, or receiving a notification on their phone.

This creates an important question:

How much responsibility should individuals already experiencing gambling-related harm be expected to carry in avoiding gambling promotion that is embedded throughout ordinary recreational environments?

Some clients have described sports programming as feeling like one continuous gambling commercial. Others have paid additional costs for advertising-free streaming services simply to watch entertainment without encountering gambling promotions.

When someone is trying to change their relationship with gambling, having to give up ordinary recreational activities or pay additional costs to avoid gambling promotion is a significant consequence that can easily be overlooked.

Advertising does not have to result in another bet to cause harm

Another important consideration is that gambling advertising can have an impact even when it does not result in renewed gambling.

For someone who has experienced significant gambling-related losses, an advertisement can bring back memories of financial problems, damaged relationships, emotional distress, or periods when gambling felt beyond their control.

These reminders can evoke shame, guilt, fear, anxiety, or other forms of distress.

The same can be true for family members and significant others who have been affected by another person's gambling. Gambling promotion can remind them of financial insecurity, breaches of trust, relationship difficulties, and other consequences they have experienced.

This means that the impact of gambling advertising should not be evaluated solely by asking whether an advertisement caused someone to place a bet.

The role of promotional incentives

The issue also extends beyond conventional advertisements.

Clients have described encountering free bets, deposit bonuses, personalized promotions, push notifications, and other incentives. I have supported clients who identified these types of promotional content as contributing to a return to gambling.

Direct marketing is particularly important because it can reach an individual personally through notifications, email, or other communications.

A comprehensive regulatory framework should therefore consider not only where gambling advertisements appear, but also how promotional incentives and targeted marketing are delivered.

This is especially important for individuals who have already recognized gambling-related harms, including people who have chosen to reduce or stop gambling or who have self-excluded from gambling services.

Children and adolescents deserve particular attention

I am also concerned about the normalization of gambling among children and adolescents.

Young people encounter gambling promotion through sports, social media, streaming services, and digital entertainment. Betting terminology, odds, promotional messages, and gambling references can become familiar long before someone reaches the legal age for regulated gambling.

Recent Ontario data cited in my submission to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage found substantial exposure to online gambling advertising among students in Grades 7–12, alongside reported participation in online gambling and a substantial increase in reported online sports betting.

These findings do not establish that advertising caused increased gambling participation. They do, however, demonstrate that gambling promotion has become part of the environment in which young people are growing up.

Gambling-like activities deserve attention too

Protecting young people also requires us to look beyond conventional gambling.

Children and adolescents can encounter social casino games, simulated sports betting, virtual-currency wagering, and other gambling-like activities that may not involve real-money wagers.

These products can reproduce elements associated with gambling, including selecting outcomes, placing simulated bets, experiencing wins and losses, and receiving rewards.

The absence of a monetary wager does not automatically mean that these products are irrelevant to the development of attitudes toward gambling.

This does not mean that every young person who encounters simulated gambling will later gamble for money or experience gambling-related harm. It does mean that these products deserve examination rather than being excluded from consideration simply because real money is not being wagered.

Protecting children should involve more than preventing them from opening regulated gambling accounts.

Bill S-211 is an important first step

I support Bill S-211 because establishing a national framework for sports betting advertising represents an important opportunity to address gambling promotion at a national level.

However, sports betting is only one part of the contemporary gambling environment.

Online casinos, lotteries, and other gambling products are also promoted through overlapping media and digital platforms. In some cases, individuals can access multiple forms of gambling through the same applications or accounts.

Addressing sports betting advertising without examining the broader promotional environment could therefore leave important sources of exposure untouched.

For that reason, I believe Bill S-211 should be viewed as the beginning of a continuing national conversation about gambling advertising and gambling-related harm.

What should come next?

From a clinical perspective, I believe future policy development should consider several priorities:

1. Put gambling-related harm at the centre of the discussion.

Policy should consider not only gambling participation and financial losses, but also the experiences of people already experiencing gambling-related difficulties, people attempting to reduce or stop gambling, and affected family members.

2. Examine advertising across contemporary media.

This should include sports broadcasts, streaming services, social media, sponsorships, celebrity and influencer promotions, and other digital platforms.

3. Address targeted marketing and promotional incentives.

Free bets, deposit bonuses, personalized promotions, push notifications, and direct marketing deserve consideration alongside conventional advertising.

4. Recognize harms that occur without another gambling episode.

Emotional distress, unwanted reminders of previous harm, disruption to recreational activities, and the costs associated with avoiding gambling advertising should be part of the discussion.

5. Strengthen protections for children and adolescents.

Advertising frequency, placement, content, targeting, and integration into sports and entertainment should all be considered when evaluating youth exposure.

6. Include frontline clinicians and people with lived and living experience.

People who work directly with gambling-related harm, along with individuals and families affected by gambling, can provide perspectives that complement population-level research and policy analysis.

7. Look beyond sports betting.

Future policy development should examine advertising for online casino gambling, lotteries, and other gambling products.

8. Examine gambling-like activities accessible to minors.

Simulated sports betting, social casino games, and other gambling-like products warrant further examination, including their design, marketing, accessibility, and potential harms.

9. Connect prevention with treatment and support.

Advertising policy should exist alongside accessible education, early identification, specialized counselling, and appropriate referral pathways.

10. Continue evaluating the effectiveness of regulation.

The gambling environment continues to change. Governments should monitor advertising exposure, emerging promotional practices, protective measures, and outcomes for people experiencing gambling-related harm.

A continuing conversation

Bill S-211 provides an opportunity to take an important step toward reducing gambling advertising-related harm in Canada.

From my clinical experience, I have heard individuals describe feeling surrounded by gambling promotion while attempting to change their behaviour. I have supported clients who identified advertising or promotional incentives as contributing factors in a return to gambling. I have also heard how gambling advertising can cause emotional distress even when it does not result in renewed gambling.

These experiences demonstrate why the consequences of gambling advertising cannot be understood solely through participation rates or financial losses.

I am equally concerned about the normalization of gambling among children and adolescents, including exposure to gambling promotion and gambling-like activities before they reach the legal age for regulated gambling.

I hope Bill S-211 represents the first significant step in an ongoing national commitment to reducing preventable gambling-related harms, rather than the final step in that process.

About this perspective

This article reflects my independent professional perspective as a Registered Social Service Worker and founder of RESET Counselling. The clinical observations described here are drawn from professional experience and contain no identifying client information. They are not intended to represent every person's experience of gambling-related harm or the official position of any other organization with which I am employed or affiliated.

My written submission to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage provides the fuller professional brief and recommendations regarding Bill S-211.