Mercedes-Benz UK Limited (Mercedes-Benz) said the competition required people to create their own video, written submission or photograph with a caption that demonstrated why they deserved to 'win a new Vito'. They explained that a judging panel reviewed all submissions once the closing date for entries had passed and drew up a shortlist of ten entries which were put up for the public vote for one month from 1 September 2011. They said an e-mail was sent to the shortlisted candidates confirming their submissions had been successful.

They said they had used an online platform to collate votes as this ensured that only one vote per person could be cast. They said the original terms and conditions were published on the website from 1 September and that a 'right to amend' clause, which stated "The Promoter reserves its right to alter, amend or foreclose the promotion at any time and without any further notice", was included to ensure that unforeseen circumstances could be addressed.

They explained that, during the course of the competition, the complainant informed them that she suspected two other finalists had acted improperly by posting on third-party websites designed as forums for those taking part in competitions that utilised public voting systems. They explained that a number of the complainant's e-mails alerting them to the possible problem went into a spam folder and that they only became aware of them during a routine trawl of their system on 19 September. They explained that, once they were aware of the complainant's concerns, they contacted her to explain that, in their view, the use of third-party websites to promote an entry did not break competition rules. They explained that the complainant challenged that decision and that, upon further investigation, they became aware that some finalists had not simply been 'promoting' their entry and had actually been actively incentivising voters by offering to pay for their votes. They therefore felt it necessary to take action against those finalists because they considered that they had not acted in the spirit of the competition, which had not been designed with incentivised voting in mind.

They explained that they froze the competition online voting on 21 September, disqualified the two finalists who they knew had been paying for votes and added a clause to the terms and conditions, which stated "The Promoter reserves the right to disqualify any Finalists from participating in the competition if it has reason to believe that anyone voting for such Finalist's submission has been paid or incentivised in any way for placing their vote, either by the Finalist or any third party". They said the voting facility was reactivated on 22 September and that all finalists were notified of those actions by e-mail on that day. They said they subsequently became aware that the complainant had made use of websites that allowed her to exchange votes with people participating in other competitions. They considered that this reciprocal arrangement constituted an incentive to voters and they therefore disqualified her (on 23 September) in line with the amended terms and conditions.

Mercedes-Benz stated that they had learned lessons from the running of the competition, particularly regarding communication and the need for robust terms and conditions, but they believed that the remedial actions they had taken ensured all finalists were treated fairly.