Ad description
A direct mailing promoted Edward Knight, a betting tipster. Text stated "RACING CERTAINTY SERVICE - BANKER BETS SERVICE AND 20 MILLION POUND SOURCE ... I make this letter brief, straight to the point - no waffle - just 100% honest, genuine facts, on the greatest offer we have ever made ... We wrote to you recently regarding the above and we allowed you two trial runners on our Racing Certainty Service. The first of these finished second, due to jumping errors. We then allowed you our follow up runner ... and won very easily. We have since had a further 28 RUNNERS - 26 WINNERS This takes our complete record to 68 WINNERS FROM 74 RUNNERS - OVER 91% WINNERS AND AT PRICES UP TO 12-1 ... We have attached a fully detailed analysis of every runner, since commencement. We also provide you with the Racing Certainty Banker Bet Service ... The service has produced 16 RUNNERS AND ALL 16 HAVE BEEN WINNERS AND AT PRICES UP TO 16-1 ... 100% winners and at fabulous prices ... In order to complete our offer - we will provide you with the greatest profit maker in the history of horse racing. That is our 20 Million Pound Source, which has produced truly phenomenal profits over the years and 2013, was again, quite beyond comprehension. A whole series of huge successes exceeding 1000-1".
The second page included two tables showing the horses advised, and claiming all had been winners, for two races in February and January. Two further pages showed tables of the results achieved by the Racing Certainty Service and Banker Bets Service.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the claims regarding the success rate of the service and the results achieved, including those listed in the results tables, were misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
Edward Knight highlighted that, as stated in their mailing, they offered all their clients a full money-back guarantee of success and should they fail to make substantial profits during a client's subscription period, they would provide a full refund. They said no other racing service in the country offered such a guarantee, but that they were in a position to do so, because they had enormous confidence in the service they provided. They argued that if their stated results were not accurate then they would have soon been out of business. Finally, they said they did not proof their results with a solicitor or chartered accountant as they were unaware of that requirement.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA acknowledged that Edward Knightâs mailing included a guarantee, but noted that there was no information regarding the terms and conditions which applied to the guarantee, including over what timescale it applied and how a consumer could make a claim. We considered, however, that the existence of such a guarantee did not constitute evidence that Edward Knight had advised the winners listed throughout the mailing. In order to substantiate the claims that they had predicted winners in the past, we considered that Edward Knight would need to proof their advice with an independent third party. Because they had not done so, we concluded that the results stated in the ad had not been substantiated and were misleading.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(Misleading advertising),
3.7
3.7
Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.
(Substantiation) and
3.11
3.11
Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product.
(Exaggeration).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Edward Knight to ensure they proofed their results with an independent third party in future.
