Ad description
A TV ad for William Hill, seen in January 2017, showed footage of horseracing. A voice-over said, “One in three jumps races last season were won by five or more lengths. Bet on any jumps race on a Friday or a Saturday. If the race is won by five or more lengths and you back the winner, you get a 25% free bet bonus on your winnings. If your horse finishes second you get your money back as a free bet. High Five from William Hill. Online, on mobile and in our shops.” Small print shown on screen throughout the ad stated “Qualifying bets, win/ each way single bets placed after 17:30 the day prior to the race. Max bonus £100 Money Back £25 per customer per race as a free bet. Free bet stake not included in winnings. T&Cs apply”.
Issue
The complainant, who understood that when bets were placed in shop the offer only applied to bets placed at the starting price rather than the current price, challenged whether the ad was misleading because it omitted significant terms and conditions.
Response
William Hill Organization Ltd said there were two key elements to the promotion. The first was an offer to refund bets (within normal limits) where the selected horse finished second. The other was an enhancement of returns by 25% where the horse won by five lengths or more. They said that the starting price retail restriction was made clear to customers in all retail promotional material, and they therefore believed that a reasonably informed and inquisitive customer would have been aware of the restriction before entering a shop and placing a bet. Furthermore, within the shop, the condition was made clear to customers in window posters and digital media.
William Hill believed that when the wider customer retail journey was taken into account, the omission of the retail starting price restriction in the ad was not misleading, and any customer misunderstanding would have been alleviated in communications that would have been seen by customers before the betting contract was struck.
Clearcast considered that the material conditions governing the offer had been made clear in the ad, but they had also asked for “T&Cs apply” to be placed in the on-screen text so that it was clear that those were not the only conditions involved in the offer. They said that the offer was run across all three of William Hill’s retail formats – online, mobile and retail shops. As the retail starting price restriction only applied to one out of the three participation routes, they did not consider it to be material and felt that “T&Cs apply” was sufficient to inform consumers that there were other conditions involved, of which they should make themselves aware. Clearcast therefore did not believe that the omission of the condition was misleading. They also felt that including the condition would lead to overly long on-screen text that could confuse viewers.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA noted that there were two elements to the promotion. We considered that viewers would understand that they could get a 25% free bet bonus on winnings if their horse won by five lengths or more. They could also get their money refunded as a free bet if their horse finished second. The ad stated “online, on mobile and in our shops”, and the small print detailed several conditions to the offer, followed by “T&Cs apply”. We noted there was no reference to conditions that applied only to any one particular participation route. We considered that consumers would understand that the promotion was available through the three different channels with the same restrictions.
However, customers placing bets in shops could only place them at the starting price, and not at the current price. We acknowledged William Hill’s assertions that potential customers could access the full terms and conditions on the website, and that the condition featured on in-store promotional materials. However, we considered that it was a significant limitation that would affect some consumers’ decisions to take up the promotion, and that it should therefore have been made clear in the ad. We concluded that the ad omitted material information and was therefore misleading.
The ad breached BCAP Code rules 3.1, 3.2 (Misleading advertising) and 3.10 (Qualification).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained about. We told William Hill Organization Ltd to ensure that they made all significant limitations to promotions clear in their advertising.
