Upheld

We noted that the "a £500 deposit" was intended "to cover our administration costs", but that the advertisers had not provided any detail relating to the nature of the costs covered by the £500. Without additional information relating to what costs were incurred by the advertisers' administrative process, we considered that some consumers would consider that £500 was a high sum to cover administrative tasks relating to a betting tipster service.

Although we considered that some consumers might understand the claim "a £500 deposit to cover our administration costs" in more general terms, to mean, for example, that the £500 would be specifically used in the running of the business, to cover general running costs and their business outgoings, we nonetheless noted we had not seen any evidence to show what expense the £500 related to and how it was used in the running of the business.

On that basis, because we had not been provided with any further information, or seen any evidence to show that how the payment was used "to cover our administration costs", we concluded that the claim was likely to mislead.

The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1, 3.3, 3.4.6 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.9 (Qualification) and 3.17 (Prices).