Background
Summary of Council decision:
Five issues were investigated, of which three were Upheld and two were Not upheld.
Ad description
The website www.betfair.com and a TV ad promoted gambling services:
a. A box at the top of the "Football" tab on the website featured an image of an octopus and text stated "WORLD CUP - ALL MARKETS - ALL CUSTOMERS MONEY BACK IF ENGLAND LOSE IN ANY GROUP STAGE MATCH IN BRAZIL". Text in a linked pop-up box stated "MONEY BACK AS A FREE BET Exclusive World Cup offer on ALL* markets, ALL customers, ALL England group games 1 Place a pre-match Sportsbook single bet on ANY of England's group matches 2 Get a full refund as a free bet if England lose that match, up to a maximum of £25 Bet Now". Smaller text at the bottom of the box stated "Terms & Conditions. *Selections in certain markets do not qualify. Free Bet Tokens valid for 48 hours". Headline text to the right of the box stated "WORLD CUP SPECIAL MONEY BACK IF ENGLAND LOSE".
b. A box at the top of the "Home" tab on the website, featured a picture of Andy Murray and text stated "2014 WIMBLEDON - FIRST BET ONLY MONEY BACK IF MURRAY WINS". Text in a linked pop-up box stated "WIMBLEDON SPEICAL Money back as a free bet if Andy Murray wins the Wimbledon men's singles ...".
c. The TV ad featured an octopus playing four games of table tennis simultaneously. The voice-over stated "On every England group match Betfair offer you money back as a free bet if England lose. All markets. All customers". Large on-screen text, shown at the same time, stated "EVERY ENGLAND GROUP MATCH MONEY BACK AS A FREE BET IF ENGLAND LOSE ALL MARKETS - ALL CUSTOMERS". Smaller text, shown throughout at the bottom of the screen, stated "Sportsbook pre-match singles only, first qualifying bet up to £25 counts per match, Cash out excluded, free bets excluded & valid for 48 hours, full terms at betfair.com".
Issue
1. Two complainants challenged whether the initial claim "Money back if England lose" in the box in ad (a) was misleading, because they understood that consumers actually received a free bet token;
2. One complainant challenged whether the claim "Money back if Murray wins" in ad (b) was misleading, for the same reason;
3. One complainant challenged whether the claim "full refund" in ad (a) was misleading, for the same reason;
4. One complainant challenged whether the claim "All markets" in ad (a) was misleading, because she understood that certain markets were excluded;
5. One complainant challenged whether the claim "Money back as a free bet" in ad (c) was misleading, because he believed it to be contradictory.
Response
1., 2. and 3. Betfair Counterparty Services Ltd t/a Betfair stated that a "Money back" promotion, where the stake was returned as a free bet, was a promotional mechanic widely used in the gambling industry, and provided examples of similar promotions by their competitors. As the ads were severely restricted by space, Betfair used "Money Back" rather than "Money Back as a Free Bet" to describe the offers as the term was well understood by the average consumer of gambling services. They said upon clicking on the offers, pop-up messages appeared which clearly set out all the significant conditions of the offers. They said both the World Cup and Wimbledon pop-ups included the words "money back as a free bet", and "Free bet tokens valid for 48 hours" and "Tokens valid for 48 hours" respectively, which they argued reinforced the fact that the stake was returned as free bet tokens. As it was not possible to take part in the promotions without seeing the pop-up message, they believed that the ads were not misleading. They acknowledged, however, that the World Cup and Wimbledon boxes initially promoting the offers, did not make sufficiently clear that the stake was returned as a free bet, and said they would ensure similar ads would make clear the nature of the “money-back offer” in future. Similarly, they noted that the use of "full refund" was a typographical error and would not be used in future ads.
4. Betfair stated that the claim was accurate as the offer applied to all markets available on Betfair Sportsbook. Whilst the offer was available on all markets, certain selections within particular markets were excluded from the offer. They said those exceptions were necessary as otherwise the offer would be vulnerable to abuse by individuals looking to exploit loopholes in their offers. They said the terms and conditions attached to the pop-up made clear that certain selections, such as "England or Draw" in the "Double Chance" market, "England Opponent No" in the "Yes/No" market, and "England" in the "Draw No Bet" market, were excluded. Although those selections were excluded, Betfair explained that it was still possible to place other bets in those markets. Therefore, they strongly believed the terms clarified, rather than contradicted, the claim.
5. Betfair again highlighted that "Money back" promotions were widely used in the industry and well understood by consumers. They highlighted that the words "AS A FREE BET" were prominently displayed on screen, and that the voice-over clearly stated "money back as a free bet", so consumers would be aware that their stake would be returned as a free bet.
Clearcast stated that the money back as a free bet promotional mechanic was a common one in the industry, and they had approved the claim for many advertisers. They said the ad made clear that if a consumer lost, their stake would be returned as a free bet. The on-screen graphic prominently displayed that condition and it was also present in the voice-over.
Assessment
1., 2. & 3. Upheld
The ASA welcomed Betfair's willingness to amend their ads. We noted that the initial claims promoting the World Cup and Wimbledon offers simply stated "MONEY BACK IF ENGLAND LOSE ..." and "MONEY BACK IF MURRAY WINS" respectively. We considered that consumers viewing the claims would believe that if England lost, or Murray won, they would receive their original stake back in cash, to be spent as they wished. We understood, however, that they would in fact receive a free bet token of the same value as their original stake (up to a set limit). As that was not made immediately clear and consumers could click on the link to take up the offer believing they would receive their initial stake in cash should England lose, we considered that the claims were misleading.
In relation to ad (a), we noted that the full claim as it appeared in the pop-up stated "Get a full refund as a free bet if England lose that match". We also noted that the pop-up box included the title "MONEY BACK AS A FREE BET". Although we considered that to refer to the free bet as "Money back" or a "full refund" was not a strictly accurate way of explaining the offer, as consumers received conditional credit, we considered that individuals reading those claims at the outset would understand that they would receive a free-bet token of the same value as their original stake (up to a maximum of £25) if England lost. We understood, however, that consumers reading the claims would have clicked through to the pop-up after viewing the headline claim "MONEY BACK IF ENGLAND LOSE", and noted that same claim was repeated in the pop-up, with greater prominence than the "Money back as a free bet" and "full refund as a free bet" claims. Therefore, in the context of the pop-up, given the various ways in which the free bet offer was described, and the fact the most prominent text stated "MONEY BACK IF ENGLAND LOSE", we considered that the "refund" claim contradicted the initial, and overall, impression created by the ad, that consumers would receive their original stake back in cash. For those reasons, we concluded that the claims were misleading.
On that point, ad (a) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements 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), and
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).
4. Not upheld
We understood that whilst all markets were included in the offer, some selections within those markets were excluded. We noted that the ad included linked footnote text that explained that "Selections in certain markets do not qualify". We also understood that the linked terms and conditions explained which selections were excluded from particular markets. Because we considered that that text qualified rather than contradicted the "ALL MARKETS" claim, we concluded that the claim was not misleading.
On that point, we investigated ad (a) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements 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), and
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), but did not find it in breach.
5. Not upheld
As stated above, we understood that consumers who placed bets on England games would be given a free bet, equivalent in value to their initial stake (up to a value of £25), if England lost. Whilst we acknowledged that consumers would not receive their initial stake back in cash, but instead as conditional credit, we considered that because the on-screen text and voice-over clearly stated "Money back as a free bet", viewers would understand the offer and appreciate that if their bet met the stated conditions, they would be awarded their initial stake in the form of a free bet. Because we considered most viewers would understand the nature of the offer, and would not expect to receive their initial stake back in cash, we concluded that the ad was not misleading.
We investigated ad (c) investigated under BCAP Code rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.2
3.2
Advertisements must not mislead consumers 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 consumers need in context to make informed decisions about whether or how to buy a product or service. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead consumers depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the advertisement is constrained by time or space, the measures that the advertiser takes to make that information available to consumers by other means.
(Misleading advertising), and
3.10
3.10
Advertisements must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.
(Qualification), but did not find it in breach.
Action
Ads (a) and (b) must not appear in their current form again. We welcomed Betfair's willingness to amend their ads and told them to ensure they made immediately clear the nature of their "money back" offers in future.
