A promotion run by Bearthecheekychow on Instagram, seen on 20 March 2019, was headed “giveaway”. Text stated “Win £100/$100/E100 Voucher to any shop of your choice. Rules ans [sic] terms below … Winner will be announced 01.04.2019 on @bearthecheekychow Instagram page”.
The complainant, who was chosen as the winner on 1 April but did not receive their prize, challenged whether the promotion had been conducted fairly.
Peter Wilson trading as Bearthecheekychow said they had sent the prize to the winner by post. They acknowledged that the winner had not received their prize but believed they had fulfilled their obligations.
The ASA understood that Bearthecheekychow announced the complainant as the winner of the promotion in a post on 1 April. The complainant made several enquiries to Bearthecheekychow about the whereabouts of her prize during April and May before being told on 16 May that it had been sent by post. We understood that she was initially told by Bearthecheekychow that they would send a replacement but that they subsequently advised her that, because the prize had not been sent by recorded or signed-for post, there was nothing further Bearthecheekychow could do. The Code stated that promoters must award prizes as described or a reasonable equivalent. We considered it was the responsibility of Bearthecheekychow to ensure they had sufficiently robust procedures in place to be able to show that a prize had been sent. Because we understood the prize (or a reasonable equivalent) had not been delivered to the complainant, and because Bearthecheekychow had not supplied evidence that it had been sent, we concluded that the promotion was in breach of the Code.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 8.1 and 8.2 (Promotional marketing) and 8.14 and 8.15.1 (Administration).
We noted that the promotion had ended. We told Bearthecheekychow to avoid causing unnecessary disappointment in future by, for example, being able to show that prizes had been sent to winners.