Divine 9

What is Divine 9?

In this context, the regulations developed to protect players begin to function as a means of legitimisation, with illegal operators even using the term “authorised” in their communication and the “.bet” extension in their domain, which is intended only for licensed operators.

According to the governance policies of Meta, the owner of Instagram, gambling platforms can use programmatic advertising services and branded content, provided they receive authorisation from the platform. They cannot target content to individuals under 18 or territories where gambling is not regulated.

To obtain Meta’s approval, the company needs to fill out a form and attach documents proving its operating licence. This same form includes a contract, in the form of an “I accept the terms and conditions” button. In it, the advertiser releases Meta from liability for any violations of the content, including legal or administrative proceedings.

How to play Divine 9

“We saw that they had entered football and advertising, and they have political and economic weight. Understanding that Congress would not prohibit the activity, we decided to put the brakes on and establish the rules.

“It’s not that I want to collect taxes because I need the money. I want to collect taxes for the sake of fairness: if a company sells cars, it pays taxes; if it sells drinks, it pays taxes. If it’s authorised to operate, it has to pay.”

In the interview, the minister mentioned the tax changes proposed by the Ministry of Finance, and more recently, the ban on beneficiaries of social welfare programmes from gambling.

What is Divine 9?

Midnite’s operator, Dribble Media Ltd, stated that the ad had not been authorised by their company. They cited discrepancies in branding and asserted that it was created and disseminated by an affiliate, Limay Media Ltd, without Midnite’s approval. 

Midnite confirmed it had terminated its contract with Limay and would reinforce compliance reminders to its partners.

Limay Media acknowledged that the person depicted was an AI-generated fictional character rather than a real individual and claimed the design was intended to appear as an adult.