Ad description
A Facebook post and a paid-for Facebook ad for Marathonbet:
a. The Facebook post, dated 12 August 2020, stated “We’re offering 0% margin on the Champions League” and provided a link. An image featured an animation of a football player holding a trophy, alongside text stating “0% margin and best prices on the Champions League”. Text below in smaller font also stated “Margin applies to certain pre-match markets only. Exact margin subject to fluctuation around 0%”.
b. The paid-for Facebook ad, seen on 11 October 2020, stated “We’re offering 0% margin on various matches”. An image box featured an image of fireworks, alongside text stating “0% margin on various matches”. Text below in smaller font stated “Margin applies to certain pre-match markets only. Exact margin subject to fluctuation around 0%”.
Issue
The complainant, who understood that small margins may apply, challenged whether the claim “0% margin” in ads (a) and (b) was misleading.
Response
Marathon Alderney Ltd t/a Marathonbet said the “0% margin” claims in ads (a) and (b) were qualified with further text that explained that the margin applied only to certain pre-match markets, and that the exact margin would fluctuate at around 0%. Marathonbet said that odds were offered in simple fractions, and when all outcomes of a single match were put together, they would not necessarily add up to a whole number when decimalised. However, the odds offered were as close to 0% as was practical for a market where there were many different potential outcomes and moving price points.
To demonstrate how margins fluctuated, Marathonbet supplied the odds time-stamped over several days for one particular Champions League match on 15 August that the ASA selected. For bets on the result of that match, the margins fluctuated between 0.0011% and 0.0052%.
Assessment
Not upheld
The ASA understood that “0% margin” to mean that if the stake was split at an appropriate level dependent on odds, on every outcome of the event there would be a guaranteed return equal to the total stakes. In contrast, if a bookmaker offered odds with a margin added and a consumer split their stake on every outcome of the event, the bookmaker would still make a profit regardless of the result. The margin, expressed as a percentage, was calculated at that level of profit. We considered that although some consumers with experience in betting would understand the claim “0% margin” to mean the above definition, consumers would more generally understand that they were likely to receive more favourable odds by choosing an option that gave them a 0% margin. We acknowledged that in some cases, because odds were expressed as fractions they would not, when decimalised, add up to a whole number. For example, odds expressed as 10:3 would, in reality, be
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.
recurring):1. It was therefore not practical in some cases for all possible outcomes for a set of odds to add up exactly to a whole number. In those cases the margin would never be exactly 0%.
We also took advice from the Gambling Commission who confirmed that when fractional or decimal odds for all outcomes within a betting market were put together it was unlikely to result in a perfect whole number ‘book’/margin. We understood that in order to create a set of odds for a series of events such as the Champions League where the odds for all outcomes added up to a whole number (meaning that the margin would always be exactly 0%), the odds would need to be expressed in decimals to three or more decimal points. We considered expressing odds in that way would likely cause more confusion to consumers. We understood that, based on the figures provided by Marathonbet, the highest margin was 0.0052%. That meant that, if a consumer had a stake of £200 across all outcomes at the appropriate and proportionate stake levels, they would be guaranteed a return of £199.99 rather than £200. For any total stake lower than that, their loss would be less than 1p. We considered that, given the above, although the margin did fluctuate around 0%, the difference was extremely small. A consumer who bet more than £200 across every possible outcome would lose some money, but the amount was proportionally very small. Additionally consumers would only suffer that guaranteed loss if they bet on all outcomes at the appropriate levels, which we considered was a hypothetical situation that consumers were unlikely to do.We acknowledged that it might be useful for some consumers to know the bookmakers’ margin in order to work out the best possible chance of profiting from their bets by obtaining the best odds. However, we considered that in practice, consumers were not likely to be materially misled by the difference between a 0% margin and a 0.0052% margin. Because we considered that consumers would not be materially misled by the fluctuating margins, we considered that the claim in ads (a) and (b) “Margin applies to certain pre-match markets only. Exact margin subject to fluctuation around 0%” was sufficient to qualify the headline claim of 0%. We therefore concluded that the ads were not misleading.
We investigated the ads under 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) 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 them in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
