Candy Corner

What is Candy Corner?

Under Section 106 of New Zealand’s Gambling Act 2003, a class 4 licence holder, also known as a “corporate society” by the regulator, “must apply or distribute the net proceeds from class 4 gambling only to or for an authorised purpose specified in the corporate society’s licence”.

The DIA worked directly with class 4 gambling operators (commonly known as pokies trusts), and discovered ‘widespread issues’ such as cases where money that should have been available for community grants was instead spent on society expenses, such as the purchase of additional gaming machines.

Vicki Scott, the DIA’s director of gambling, said the investigation had delivered significant results, while stressing that work to improve compliance and ensure communities received their share of gambling proceeds would continue.

What is Candy Corner?

In 2025, Brazil collected almost BRL10 billion ($1.97 billion) in tax revenue from the licensed sector. In the first seven months of this year alone, BRL8.7 billion generated by the activity was delivered to public coffers. The Federal Revenue Service itself estimates that the sector should reach BRL16 billion in revenue during 2026.

Besides revenue collection, another concern is legal and economic. Companies have paid over BRL2.5 billion for licences since the sector’s regulation. Certainly, the end of the activity would lead to litigation to recover the amounts paid and compensation for investments made. Furthermore, the revenue from betting is already included in the Annual Budget Law and the Budget Guidelines Law, which define the priorities for federal government spending.

What worries the sector is not just the threat of drastic measures against legalised betting. So far, the government has consistently fallen short in its attempts to curb the illegal market, which still represents almost half of the segment.

What is Candy Corner?

Limay reported implementing new safety measures for AI-generated gambling creatives, including specifying age-related prompts and reviewing the perceived age of AI outputs.

Despite these measures, the ASA found that the character’s age was not credibly verified. The prompts used to generate the AI image did not explicitly require the character to appear aged 25 or over. Without an independent verification process, the regulator determined the character still “seemed to be under 25”.

The ASA’s ruling directed both Dribble Media and Limay Media to ensure the offending advertisement would not be redisplayed in the same form.