A prize giveaway on influencer @amelias.homestyle.x’s Instagram page, seen on 11 August 2019, offered a bespoke bed from Luxsleeps. The caption stated “GIVEAWAY…As promised, to celebrate you lot, 5,000 of you! I have teamed up with 3 fab companies to give one of you the chance to win some amazing things for your home! You will get this gorgeous bed from @luxsleeps in ANY size, colour, & fabric of your choice with over 30 colours to choose from!”
IssueThe complainant, who had been notified that they had won the prize but did not receive it, challenged whether the promotion breached the Code.
ResponsePerson(s) Unknown t/a Luxsleeps did not respond to the ASA’s enquiries. @amelias.homestyle.x said that the giveaway was posted to celebrate her reaching a certain number of followers on Instagram. There was no contract between her and Luxsleeps and it was expected that the winner would receive the bed once the giveaway had concluded. She provided screenshots of her attempts to contact Luxsleeps, however, she had not received a response.
AssessmentThe ASA was concerned by Luxsleeps’ lack of response and apparent disregard for the Code, which was a breach of CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.7 1.7 Any unreasonable delay in responding to the ASA's enquiries will normally be considered a breach of the Code. (Unreasonable delay). We reminded Luxsleeps of their responsibility to respond promptly to our enquiries and told them to do so in future. Upheld The CAP Code stated that promoters must award the prizes as described in their marketing communications or reasonable equivalents, normally within 30 days after the closing date, unless the terms of the promotion specified a later date. The Code also stated that withholding prizes was only justified if participants had not met the qualifying criteria set out clearly in the rules of the promotion. We understood that the complainant was informed that they had won the prize on 6 September 2019 but they had not received the prize. We acknowledged that @amelias.homestyle.x had contacted Luxsleeps on behalf of the complainant but did not receive a response. The complainant had also contacted Luxsleeps on a number of occasions and had not received a substantive response. The ad stated the rules of the promotion, but did not specify a date by which the prize would be awarded, so we expected that it should therefore have been awarded within 30 days after the closing date of the promotion. We further understood that the complainant had met the qualifying criteria that were set out in the rules and we therefore considered that there was no justifiable reason for withholding the prize. Because the prize had not been awarded, we concluded the promotion breached the Code. The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 8.2 (Promotional marketing), 8.14 8.14 Promoters must ensure that their promotions are conducted under proper supervision and make adequate resources available to administer them. Promoters, agencies and intermediaries should not give consumers justifiable grounds for complaint. 8.15.1 8.15.1 Promoters must award the prizes as described in their marketing communications or reasonable equivalents, normally within 30 days. (Administration) and 8.27 8.27 Withholding prizes (see rules 8.15.1 and 8.28.2) is justified only if participants have not met the qualifying criteria set out clearly in the rules of the promotion. 8.28 8.28 Participants must be able to retain conditions or easily access them throughout the promotion. In addition to rule 8.17, prize promotions must specify on all marketing communications or other material referring to them, the following information, clearly before or at the time of entry, where the omission of any of the specified items is likely to mislead. 8.28.3 8.28.3 if more than 30 days after the closing date, the date by which prizewinners will receive their prizes (Prize promotions).
We told Person(s) Unknown t/a Luxsleeps to award the prize to the complainant and to ensure that future promotions were conducted in accordance with the Code. We informed CAP’s Compliance team of Luxsleep’s failure to respond to our enquiries and referred the matter on to them.