ASA Adjudication on Paddy Power plc

Ad

A national press ad, for a betting website, was headlined “Next Airline to go BUST?”. Text below stated “Booked a flight? Don’t sweat, insure with Paddy Power”. The names of several airlines were listed, each next to different odds; smaller text stated “Applies to the first airline going into administration. gambleaware.co.uk. Odds subject to fluctuation - no kidding!”.

Issue

The complainant objected that the ad denigrated the airlines listed because it implied they might go into administration.

CAP Code

Response

Paddy Power said they were the market leaders in providing odds for topical news stories; their portfolio of non-sports betting markets was exclusively driven by consumer demand, which was in turn driven by the news agenda.   They said they offered odds on domestic and international politics, economics, music, film, TV and the weather, among hundreds of betting opportunities.  

They said after two airlines entered protective administration they received numerous requests for odds on which airline would do so next; they considered this to be a legitimate betting market, which proved to be one of the most popular non-sports markets of September 2008.  Given its popularity, they decided to promote it with a modest press campaign.  Having set the initial prices, individual odds for each airline reflected the weight of the money that had been wagered on it; Paddy Power said they did not manipulate the odds, which were dictated entirely by the flow of money.  They said the maximum stake was £200 (or €250) per customer, which meant customers could not manipulate the perception of a particular airlines financial position.     

They said they had closed betting on which airline would be next to go into administration and had no plans to run the campaign in the future.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA noted Paddy Powers comments that the betting market for the airline most likely to fall into administration was driven by popular demand and that the odds were determined only by the amount of money wagered on any particular airline.  We considered however that such a betting market inevitably suggested that airlines were at risk of entering administration and that some airlines were more at risk of doing so than others; the ad suggested that the airlines it featured were at risk.  

Because the ad suggested that the named airlines, particularly those with the shortest odds, might go into administration we concluded it unfairly discredited those businesses.  

The ad breached CAP Code clause 20.1 (Denigration and unfair advantage).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form.  We told Paddy Power to ensure they did not unfairly discredit businesses when advertising betting markets.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)