Background

Summary of Council decision:

Three issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.

Ad description

A website for an online casino, www.888casino.com, displayed a scrolling banner on web pages which advertised different types of membership. A web page which advertised the 'VIP' membership featured the claims "Join THE BEST VIP PROGRAM AROUND As a VIP, you can expect the professional service you deserve, be dazzled with amazing red carpet luxuries and spoiled with even more chances to win", "The Best VIP PROMOTIONS ANYWHERE Our VIP promotions are simply the best! With hospitality second-to-none, and out-of-this-world prizes ranging from the latest hi-tech gadgets, jewellery and designer goods to sports trips, luxury holidays and massive cash bonuses, our promotions really are worth winning!". On a web page advertising the 'High Roller' membership, the banner stated "Welcome to 888casino's HIGH ROLLERS CLUB! ... Our High Rollers enjoy the best benefits, bonuses, promotions and exclusive event offers anywhere online".

Issue

Rational Entertainment Enterprises Ltd (Isle of Man) challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:

1. "THE BEST VIP PROGRAM AROUND";

2. "The Best VIP PROMOTIONS ANYWHERE", "Our VIP promotions are simply the best!" and "With hospitality second-to-none"; and

3. "Our High Rollers enjoy the best benefits, bonuses, promotions and exclusive event offers anywhere online".

Response

1. & 2. Cassava Enterprises (Gibraltar) Ltd t/a 888casino.com (888casino) said the claims used extremely broad language to convey their subjective opinion about their VIP program, promotions and hospitality, making general assertions about being the "best" which would not be taken literally by consumers. They considered that the language used was so effusive and hyperbolic that consumers would understand that the claims were subjective puffery which represented 888casino's opinion about their offerings, rather than objective statements. They considered that was particularly the case because the claims did not include any qualifications as to why they believed their VIP program, promotions and hospitality were "the best" or "second-to-none"; in the absence of specific criteria of what made them the "best", they believed consumers would identify the claims immediately as subjective puffery.

888casino said their advertising claims were also similar to the advertising claims of many of their competitors, including the complainant, and that therefore consumers would understand, in the context of their particular industry, that the claims were subjective puffery.

3. 888casino acknowledged the claim "Our High Rollers enjoy the best benefits, bonuses, promotions and exclusive event offers anywhere online" appeared more specific than the other claims and therefore was possibly more likely to be taken literally. They considered, however, that similar to the other claims, the ad did not refer to any specific reasons as to why their offerings were the "best", as would be expected of an objective assessment, nor did it outline or imply the criteria against which superiority might be assessed. They believed the assertions in the claim were extremely general and would be taken as their subjective opinion. They reiterated that their competitors, including the complainant, also made similar claims in their own advertising and they believed consumers would understand such claims in an industry context.

Assessment

The ASA understood that the 'High Roller' and 'VIP' membership statuses described in the ads were premium membership levels for members who had bet significant amounts over the lifetime of their membership, granted by 888casino on an invite-only basis. Members were first granted High Roller status before becoming eligible for VIP status. We considered that consumers who visited the sections of 888casino's website which related to those types of membership would be likely to have some knowledge about the types of benefits such membership statuses would confer. We considered that in that context, "best" claims which referenced the types of benefits conferred by those membership statuses were likely to be understood as objective claims which were capable of substantiation. Consumers would expect that 888casino had objectively compared their offerings with other similar offerings provided by other online casino operators and found their offerings to be superior to all other similar offerings.

1. & 2. Upheld

We noted the claim "Join THE BEST VIP PROGRAM AROUND" was accompanied by text which stated "As a VIP, you can expect the professional service you deserve, be dazzled with amazing red carpet luxuries and spoiled with even more chances to win", and the claim "The Best VIP PROMOTIONS ANYWHERE" was accompanied by text which stated "Our VIP promotions are simply the best! With hospitality second-to-none, and out-of-this-world prizes ranging from the latest hi-tech gadgets, jewellery and designer goods to sports trips, luxury holidays and massive cash bonuses, our promotions really are worth winning!".

We considered consumers would understand from the claims that a "professional" service, access to "luxuries", "even more chances to win", and the quality of "hospitality" and "prizes" were some of the benefits conferred on VIP members. In that context, we considered consumers would understand that those criteria formed the basis on which 888casino claimed their VIP program and promotions were "the best". We considered consumers would therefore expect that 888casino had objectively compared the benefits of their VIP program with similar offerings from other online casino operators, and found their program superior to all others. Because we understood the claim had not been based on such an objective comparison, we concluded it was misleading.

On those points, 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  3.38 3.38 Marketing communications that include a comparison with an unidentifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer. The elements of the comparison must not be selected to give the marketer an unrepresentative advantage.  (Other Comparisons).

3. Upheld

We considered consumers would understand from the claim that "bonuses", "promotions" and "exclusive event offers" were some of the benefits conferred on High Roller members, and that 888casino had objectively compared those benefits with similar offerings from other online casino operators and found their program to be superior to all others. Because we understood the claim had not been based on such an objective comparison, we concluded it was misleading.

On that point, 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  3.38 3.38 Marketing communications that include a comparison with an unidentifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer. The elements of the comparison must not be selected to give the marketer an unrepresentative advantage.  (Other Comparisons).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told 888casino to exercise caution when making "best" claims in future.

CAP Code (Edition 12)

3.1     3.3     3.38     3.7    


More on