YouTubers escape fines for promoting their own CS:GO gambling site

A pair of YouTubers will not face any fines for undisclosed promotion of a Counter-Strike: GO (CS: GO) gambling site they owned, as part of a settlement with the FTC announced this week.

Further Reading YouTubers under fire for promoting their own CS:GO gambling site in videos Last May, Trevor “TmarTn” Martin and Thomas “Syndicate” Cassell came under fire for videos promoting CSGO Lotto, a site that lets players gamble using in-game skins as a form of currency. Those videos breathlessly promoted the site with titles like "HOW TO WIN $13,000 IN 5 MINUTES" but did not disclose that the site in question was itself owned by the video makers.

Martin and Cassell will not face fines as part of the settlement but have agreed to "clearly and conspicuously disclose any material connections with an endorser or between an endorser and any promoted product or service" in the future. That punishment is barely even a slap on the wrist for what the initial complaint called a "deceptive act or practice" that could mislead and harm consumers.

Further Reading Valve refuses government request to cut off Steam skin trading CS:GO maker Valve has faced its own criticism for enabling the kind of skin-based gambling on its in-game items, including a lawsuit from a concerned mom and a vaguely threatening letter from the Washington State Gaming Commission. Valve has tried to distance itself from the skin-gambling side of the game—arguing it hasn't broken any laws and doesn't directly profit from any such schemes—and has refused requests to cut off the skin-trading system at the source.

In England, a similar third-party gambling site that allowed players to make bets using virtual in-game FIFA currency drew significant fines from that country's Gambling Commission. That case focused primarily on the site's use by minors, though, and not merely undisclosed promotion.

Alongside the settlement, the FTC announced it had sent a letter to 21 other "social media influencers" warning them that "if there is a 'material connection' between an endorser and the marketer of a product—in other words, a connection that might affect the weight or credibility that consumers give the endorsement—that connection should be clearly and conspicuously disclosed, unless the connection is already clear from the context of the communication containing the endorsement."