For an ordinary UGC account, the answer is no. Not out of caution, and not as brand policy: because there is a provision that says so, and almost nobody cites it in these conversations.

It is article 91.2.c) of the General Audiovisual Communication Act, and it settles the question before anyone gets to talk about rates.

The specialised channel rule

That article, setting out how video-sharing platform providers ensure compliance for commercial communications they do not market themselves, states that those relating to gambling and betting may only be broadcast where three things hold at once.

The three conditions

The account's main activity. The channel broadcasting the commercial communication must have as its main activity the offering of information or content about the gambling activities defined in Law 13/2011.

Age-access control. The age-access control mechanisms available on the platform must be guaranteed to be in place.

Safe-gambling messages. There must be periodic broadcasting of messages about safe or responsible gambling.

Where all three are met, those communications do not have to comply with the time-slot regime that applies to other media.

Why this leaves out almost all UGC

The first condition is the one that closes the door, and it does so in a way no contract clause can fix.

A lifestyle, comedy, sports or technology account does not have as its main activity informing about gambling. It may have the perfect audience for the advertiser and still not fit, because the criterion measures editorial line, not audience.

Nor is it solved by posting three casino videos before the campaign: a channel's main activity is an observable feature of its history, not a declaration of intent.

The licence requirement

To this is added a second barrier, this one on the advertiser's side. Article 123.7 of the same act reserves audiovisual commercial communication about gambling and betting to entities holding a licence to carry out that class of activity in Spain.

In practice this means checking, before considering the job, that the operator appears as licensed. An operator legally active in another country is not covered by that condition here.

The same paragraph also prohibits, in any event, commercial communication of this kind broadcast alongside programmes aimed at a potential child audience.

What Royal Decree 958/2020 no longer says

This is where to go slowly, because it is where the most outdated information circulates.

Article 15 has been annulled

Royal Decree 958/2020, on commercial communications for gambling activities, contained an article 15 devoted to the appearance of persons or characters of public relevance or notoriety in commercial communications. In the consolidated text of the Official State Gazette that article now appears as annulled, and with it paragraphs 1 and 3 of article 13.

Many guides still explain Spanish gambling regulation by citing that article 15 as the reason a known person cannot advertise betting. Anyone building a decision on that basis is working from a text that is no longer in force.

What does remain

The decree keeps much of its content, and one provision matters directly to anyone producing video: commercial communications for promotional activities shall not include testimonials from previous beneficiaries of the promotion, real or fictitious.

It is the same logic as in health advertising and deserves underlining: the testimonial, which is the natural UGC format, is precisely what these regimes bound first.

The grey area of unpaid content

The objection that always comes up

And it is a fair one, even without a comfortable answer: what if nobody pays?

The rule in article 91.2.c) speaks of audiovisual commercial communications, not of paid content, so the absence of money is not by itself enough to sit outside it. At the same time, genuinely editorial content about gambling is not a commercial communication.

The line is drawn where it always is: by the existence of an arrangement with the operator and by the promotional function of the piece. When both are present, the lack of payment does not change the nature of what was published.

Two common set-ups fall on this side more often than people admit. An affiliate link pays by result, so there is an arrangement and a promotional function even without a fixed fee. And streaming play with the operator's branding on screen, agreed with them, is not saved by being presented as entertainment either.

What an operator can ask for without putting anyone at fault

A licensed operator wanting to work with audiovisual production in Spain has room, but not in the place they usually look for it.

Production for their own channels. Commissioning pieces from creators to broadcast from the operator's own accounts does not raise the main-activity problem, because the broadcasting channel is theirs.

Branded content that is not gambling commercial communication. Sponsorships and appearances that do not amount to commercial communication of the gambling activity follow their own analysis.

Working with genuinely specialised channels. They exist, they have that editorial profile, and they fit the condition.

What does not work is hiring a generalist account and hoping the mention goes unnoticed. The main-activity condition is not a best-practice recommendation.

How to check before accepting

A proposal of this kind is settled in five minutes if the checks are done in order, and in five months if they are done afterwards.

  1. Check the operator's licence in the competent authority's register. If it is not licensed in Spain, the analysis ends here.
  2. Look honestly at the channel's main activity. The question is not whether the video fits, but whether the channel routinely informs about gambling. If it has to be argued, the answer is no.
  3. Verify which age-control mechanisms that specific platform offers and whether they will genuinely be switched on for that post.
  4. Decide where the safe-gambling message goes and how often, because the condition speaks of periodic broadcasting and not of a one-off mention.
  5. Keep the agreement and the approved piece in writing. It is the first thing asked for if anyone queries it, and the thing that rarely exists.

If any of the five fails, the problem is not fixed by a clause in the contract: it is fixed by not publishing.

Sources

Checked on 10 September 2026. This guide is not legal advice and does not replace an examination of the individual case. Where this guide and the official source diverge, the source prevails.