Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
Two promotions on the William Hill website, www.williamhill.com:
a. A promotion seen on 11 December 2015 was headed “£5 Risk Free* With Family Guy ... Play Now”. Further text stated “Get cosy with the Griffins this weekend and get a giggidy Risk Free! Claim Now and stake £5 or more on Family Guy until midnight on Sunday, and if the reels don’t spin in your favour you’ll get a £5 Risk Free to have another go” and “Family Guy £5 Risk Free Terms and Conditions: ... 2. The Promotions is only available to players who have claims and placed a minimum stake of £5 … 3. Refunded cash will be calculated as losses incurred less winnings on the Selected Games up to £5. 4. A minimum of £5 will be awarded during any Promotion Period. Any amounts less than £5 will not qualify”.
b. A promotion seen on 25 December 2015 was headed “Christmas Cracker - Get £10 Risk Free on The Pig Wizard”. Further text stated “Merry Christmas! You’ve pulled our cracker, now squeal with joy with this £10 Risk Free offer on The Pig Wizard! Simply, click ‘Claim Now’ and then stake £10 on this magical slot before midnight tonight, safe in the knowledge that if you’re not a winner this time, we’ll refund you up to £10” and “£10 Risk Free The Pig Wizard Vega Millions Terms and Conditions” ... 2. The Promotion is only available to players who have claimed and placed a minimum stake of £10 … 4. Refunded money will be calculated as losses incurred less winnings on the Selected Games up to £10. 5. A minimum of £10 will be awarded during any Promotion Period. Any amounts less than £10 will not qualify for bonus credit”.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether:
1. the claim “Risk Free” in ad (a) was misleading, because when they played the game they were unable to obtain the £5 refund without staking additional money; and
2. the claim “£10 Risk Free” in ad (b) was misleading, because they said they were refused a refund on the basis that they had only staked £9.80 of their own money and the 80p which they ‘won’ during the game and subsequently lost, did not count as their own money.
Response
1. WHG (International) Ltd t/a William Hill said the terms and conditions of the promotion clearly referenced the minimum and maximum amounts that would be refunded in the event that the customer did not win on the game. This information, together with the game rules should have made the minimum spin amount obvious to the customer. They said it was relatively clear that the minimum amount of any spin was 50 pence and the terms and conditions (T&Cs) made clear that the maximum and minimum which would be refunded was £5. It was possible that the customer would win during the spins placed on the game, but that did not impact on the T&Cs which they had accepted by participating in the promotion. However, they said they were willing to amend the T&Cs to specifically reference instances such as this. They confirmed that the £5 refund was withdrawable as cash by the customer.
2. William Hill said that the promotion was relatively self-explanatory, in that the funds were ‘risk-free’. If a customer played the game and did not win, their losses would be returned. The only caveat was that the minimum and maximum amount that would be refunded was £10. They believed this was made very clear by the T&Cs, which were featured on the same page as the promotion. The reason for having the minimum and maximum amounts was that it would be extremely challenging for them to be able to credit different amounts given the numbers opting into the promotions. They confirmed that the £10 refund was withdrawable as cash by the customer.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA considered that consumers would understand from the claim “£5 Risk Free” in ad (a) that they could stake £5 on the game without risk, meaning that if they lost that money on the game it would be refunded to them and withdrawable as cash. We noted that the T&Cs for the promotion appeared on the same page as the promotion itself meaning they were drawn to consumers’ attention. However, we considered that the wording of the terms was unclear and contradictory. In particular, the third term stated that “Refunded cash will be calculated as losses incurred less winnings on the Selected Games up to £5”, but the fourth term stated “A minimum will be awarded during any Promotion Period. Any amounts less than £5 will not qualify”. We considered that these references to “up to £5”, “a minimum of £5” and “Any amounts less than £5 will not qualify” would be likely to confuse consumers about what amounts would be refunded. We also understood that in the case of the complainant, when they played the game they were unable to obtain the £5 refund without staking additional money because they won 40 pence in the game and were therefore in credit to that amount in the game, which they were unable to stake without adding 10 pence of their own money due to a minimum 50 pence stake. We considered that this contradicted the “risk free” offer, because it was not possible in all cases to stake £5 and receive a refund without a customer staking some additional money of their own. We therefore concluded that the claim “Risk Free” was misleading.
On this point ad (a) 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),
3.9
3.9
Marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.
(Qualification) and
8.2
8.2
Promoters must conduct their promotions equitably, promptly and efficiently and be seen to deal fairly and honourably with participants and potential participants. Promoters must avoid causing unnecessary disappointment.
(Sales promotions).
2. Upheld
We considered that consumers would understand from the claim “£10 Risk Free” in ad (b) that they could stake £10 on the game without risk, meaning that if they lost that money on the game it would be refunded to them and withdrawable as cash. We noted that the T&Cs for the promotion appeared on the same page as the promotion itself meaning they were drawn to consumers’ attention. We considered that the ad made sufficiently clear that to participate in the promotion customers would have to stake £10 of their own money – the text giving information about the offer stated “Simply, click ‘Claim Now’ and then stake £10 on this magical slot” and the T&Cs also stated that the promotion was “only available to players who have claimed and placed a minimum stake of £10”. We therefore did not consider consumers would expect to be able to stake less than £10 and use any subsequent winnings for the minimum stake requirement for the promotion. However, we considered that the wording of other terms was unclear and contradictory. In particular the fourth term stated “Refunded money will be calculated as losses incurred less winnings on the Selected Games up to £10”, but the fourth term stated “A minimum of £10 will be awarded during any Promotion Period. Any amounts less than £10 will not qualify for bonus credit”. We considered these references to “up to £10”, “a minimum of £10” and “amounts less than £10 will not qualify for bonus credit” would be likely to confuse consumers about what amounts would be refunded. We therefore concluded that the ad was misleading.
On this point ad (b) 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),
3.9
3.9
Marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.
(Qualification) and
8.2
8.2
Promoters must conduct their promotions equitably, promptly and efficiently and be seen to deal fairly and honourably with participants and potential participants. Promoters must avoid causing unnecessary disappointment.
(Sales promotions).
Action
The ads must not appear again in the form complained of. We told William Hill to ensure that terms and conditions were clearly worded and unambiguous, so that consumers would understand how the promotion worked and what amounts would be refunded. We also told them not to describe promotions as “risk free” if the mechanic of the relevant game meant that it was not possible in all cases to stake the required amount and receive a refund without a customer staking some additional money of their own.
