Can Social Media Creators Promote Online Gambling?
Introduction
Social media content creators, influencers, livestreamers, and affiliate marketers may face criminal and regulatory exposure when they promote online casinos, betting applications, or other gambling platforms. The principal issue is whether the promoted activity is authorized by Philippine law and whether the creator’s conduct amounts to participation in, aiding, protecting, or abetting an unlawful gambling operation.
Under the present legal regime, offshore gaming operations and related activities prohibited by law cannot be made lawful merely through advertising, affiliate arrangements, sponsorships, referral links, or social media promotions. A creator’s liability depends on the specific conduct, knowledge, participation, and connection to the prohibited operation.
The Present Prohibition Against Offshore Gaming
The Anti-POGO Act of 2025 prohibits any person or entity from conducting or offering offshore gaming upon the law’s effectivity. The prohibition covers the establishment, operation, or conduct of offshore gaming; acceptance of bets; acting as a POGO gaming content or services provider; creating or operating a POGO hub or site; and introducing, using, or possessing POGO gaming equipment or paraphernalia. It also covers aiding, protecting, or abetting prohibited activities. ([Anti-POGO Act of 2025](#L2.4))
Accordingly, a social media creator who knowingly promotes a prohibited offshore casino, supplies referral links, recruits bettors, directs users to a betting application, or receives commissions for customer acquisitions may be examined not only as an advertiser but also as a possible participant or facilitator of the prohibited activity.
The statute’s express coverage of persons who aid, protect, or abet prohibited activities is particularly relevant to affiliate marketing. The legal assessment will depend on whether the creator’s acts materially supported the prohibited operation and whether the required criminal elements, including knowledge and intent where applicable, can be proven.
What Conduct May Create Criminal Exposure?
Potentially risky conduct includes:
- posting a direct advertisement for an unauthorized online casino or betting application;
- placing a referral, tracking, or registration link in a video description, profile, livestream, or private message;
- encouraging followers to deposit money, place bets, or claim promotional credits;
- receiving commissions based on registrations, deposits, losses, or betting activity;
- hosting livestreams or promotional events designed to attract Filipino users to a prohibited platform; and
- providing false claims that an illegal platform is licensed, safe, or approved by a Philippine government agency.
Not every mention of gambling automatically establishes criminal liability. The prosecution must still prove the particular offense charged and the accused’s participation beyond reasonable doubt. However, repeated promotion, personal referral codes, commission payments, operational instructions, and direct involvement in acquiring bettors may provide evidence of intentional assistance.
Illegal Gambling and Direct or Indirect Participation
Presidential Decree No. 1602 penalizes persons who directly or indirectly take part in illegal or unauthorized gambling activities, including games or schemes involving wagers of money, articles of value, or their representatives. ([Presidential Decree No. 1602](#L7.0))
The Supreme Court has explained that an illegal-gambling conviction requires proof of the accused’s direct or indirect participation. Mere presence at a gambling location, or vague testimony that does not identify the game, bettors, betting activity, administrator, and denomination of the wager, may be insufficient to overcome reasonable doubt. (Beloncio et al. v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 248583, 2025) ([Beloncio et al. v. People of the Philippines (2025)](#J2.6))
This rule is important for online promotions. A creator should not automatically be treated as guilty merely because an advertisement appears on the creator’s account. The prosecution must connect the creator’s acts to the unlawful gambling activity and establish the elements of the offense charged. Conversely, a creator who actively recruits bettors, manages referrals, provides betting instructions, or receives compensation linked to gambling transactions may face a stronger allegation of indirect participation.
Aiding, Protecting, or Abetting Prohibited Operations
The Anti-POGO Act expressly includes aiding, protecting, or abetting acts prohibited under the statute. This provision may cover conduct that does not consist of personally operating the casino but that intentionally assists the operation.
Affiliate arrangements deserve particular scrutiny. A creator who receives a unique referral code, earns a percentage of deposits or losses, communicates with the operator’s marketing team, and repeatedly directs followers to the platform may be viewed differently from a person who unknowingly reposts an advertisement.
Relevant evidence may include contracts, payment records, referral dashboards, communications with the operator, scripts, promotional materials, audience targeting, and statements showing that the creator knew the platform lacked lawful authority.
Authorization and Licensing Matter
Before promoting any gambling-related platform, the creator and the brand should verify the platform’s legal authority to operate and advertise in the Philippines. A foreign registration, private certification, or platform-issued “license” does not by itself establish authority to conduct gambling activities in the Philippines.
Earlier Supreme Court decisions recognized that gambling franchises and authority to operate gambling activities are matters governed by law and cannot simply be transferred or delegated without legal authorization. (Jaworski v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation, et al., G.R. No. 144463, 2004) ([Jaworski v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation, et al. (2004)](#J10.1))
Earlier jurisprudence concerning POGO regulation involved licensed operations under the regulatory system then existing. (Evangelista v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation, et al., G.R. Nos. 228234, 228315, and 230080, 2023) ([Evangelista v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation, et al. (2023)](#J1.12)) Those earlier regulatory discussions should not be treated as permission to promote activities now prohibited by the Anti-POGO Act of 2025.
When Is Gambling Considered Unauthorized?
Gambling is not necessarily illegal solely because it involves a game of chance. The Supreme Court has recognized that a game becomes illegal or unauthorized when it lacks the required license or authority from the duly empowered government agency, or when it violates applicable regulations. (Republic of the Philippines v. Association of Barangay Councils, G.R. No. 207118, 2025) ([Republic of the Philippines v. Association of Barangay Councils (2025)](#J4.17))
That principle does not protect online casino promotions when the activity falls within an express statutory prohibition. Under the Anti-POGO Act, the prohibited acts include not only the operation of offshore gaming but also related conduct such as providing services, maintaining a POGO site, possessing prohibited equipment, and aiding or abetting the unlawful activity. ([Anti-POGO Act of 2025](#L2.4))
Distinguishing Advertising From Criminal Participation
| Conduct | Legal significance |
|---|---|
| Unpaid and uninformed repost of gambling-related content | May raise compliance concerns, but criminal liability still requires proof of the offense and the creator’s legally sufficient participation. |
| Paid advertisement with a direct registration link | May support an allegation that the creator intentionally assisted customer acquisition. |
| Referral code tied to deposits, losses, or betting volume | Creates stronger evidence of a commercial connection to the gambling operation. |
| Instructions on deposits, withdrawals, or betting strategies | May indicate active facilitation rather than ordinary advertising. |
| Promotion of a platform falsely represented as licensed | May create additional civil, administrative, or criminal issues depending on the representation and resulting harm. |
Evidence and Prosecution Considerations
In an illegal-gambling prosecution, the government must prove the specific prohibited activity and the accused’s direct or indirect participation. The Supreme Court has stressed that testimony must identify the essential details of the gambling operation; vague evidence is insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Beloncio et al. v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 248583, 2025) ([Beloncio et al. v. People of the Philippines (2025)](#J2.6))
For social media cases, relevant evidence may include screenshots, livestream recordings, links, referral codes, payment receipts, affiliate agreements, analytics reports, direct messages, and admissions. Digital evidence should be preserved with proper attention to authenticity, integrity, and the applicable rules on electronic evidence.
Knowledge may be inferred from repeated conduct, warnings received, contractual arrangements, the creator’s communications with the operator, or the deliberate concealment of the platform’s identity. The existence of a payment arrangement alone does not dispense with the prosecution’s obligation to prove all elements of the offense.
Possible Money-Laundering Concerns
Affiliate commissions or payments may create additional scrutiny when the creator knows, or has reason to know, that the funds represent proceeds of an unlawful activity. The Supreme Court has recognized that a money-laundering case may proceed independently from prosecution of the predicate unlawful activity, although the prosecution must still prove beyond reasonable doubt that the property involved represents proceeds of an unlawful activity. (Lingad v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 224945, 2022) ([Lingad v. People of the Philippines (2022)](#J8.20))
Creators should therefore avoid accepting unexplained payments through nominees, cryptocurrency wallets, personal accounts of unrelated persons, or other arrangements designed to conceal the source of funds. Payment records, invoices, contracts, and tax documentation should be maintained for legitimate transactions.
Recommended Compliance Measures
Creators, agencies, and advertisers should adopt the following safeguards:
- Verify authority before publication. Obtain documentary proof of the operator’s Philippine authority and confirm that the proposed activity is not covered by the statutory ban.
- Reject prohibited promotions. Do not accept campaigns involving offshore gaming, POGO services, unlicensed casinos, or betting applications prohibited under Philippine law.
- Review compensation terms. Avoid compensation based on deposits, losses, betting volume, or successful recruitment of bettors unless the arrangement has been reviewed for legal compliance.
- Preserve records. Keep contracts, invoices, approvals, platform representations, and communications concerning the campaign.
- Remove questionable content promptly. Suspend links and advertisements when the operator’s authority becomes doubtful or when a government prohibition applies.
- Obtain legal advice before responding to investigators. Preserve digital records and seek counsel before making statements that may affect criminal or administrative proceedings.
Final Observations
Social media creators are not automatically criminally liable for every gambling-related reference or advertisement. Liability turns on the applicable prohibition, the creator’s knowledge, the nature of the assistance provided, and the evidence connecting the creator to the unlawful gambling operation.
Nevertheless, paid affiliate marketing, referral links, bettor recruitment, operational instructions, and commission-based promotion materially increase legal risk. In light of the Anti-POGO Act of 2025, creators and advertisers should treat promotions involving offshore gaming or related POGO activities as prohibited unless competent legal counsel confirms that the proposed activity is outside the statutory ban and is otherwise lawfully authorized.
About Nicolas and De Vega Law Offices
Nicolas and de Vega Law Offices is a full-service law firm in the Philippines. You may visit us at the 16th Flr., Suite 1607 AIC Burgundy Empire Tower, ADB Ave., Ortigas Center, 1605 Pasig City, Metro Manila, Philippines. You may also call us at +632 84706126, +632 84706130, +632 84016392 or e-mail us at [email protected]. Visit our website https://ndvlaw.com.
