Ad description
The website www.samsung.com, seen in June 2024, included a webpage for a cashback promotion. Text stated, “Claim up to £500 cashback when you buy selected Samsung products. Hurry, offer ends of [sic] 2nd July”.
A further webpage stated, “With up to £500 cashback on selected devices, now’s the time to experience the Galaxy AI universe”. Further text stated, “Purchase a qualifying Samsung product from a participating retailer between 5th June 2024 and 2nd July 2024 to be eligible for up to £500 cashback. Claims must be submitted within 45 days of purchase”. Below four text boxes outlined the steps to claim cashback and included the text “3. We check your claim. We’ll let you know within 5 working days whether your claim has been approved. You can check the progress anytime by using Track My Claim” and “4. Cashback. Once your claim has been approved, we’ll send your cashback to the bank account provided on your Claim form within 45 days”.
Issue
Thirteen complainants, who had not received their cashback within 45 days of the claim being approved despite fulfilling the terms of the promotion, challenged whether the promotion was administered fairly.
Response
Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd t/a Samsung said that of all validated claims, 10% had taken longer than the 45-day deadline for the cashback payment, with 3% of those claims exceeding 60 days.
They explained that they used their third-party handling agency to process cashback claims and that they were advised there had been a delay in processing some claims due to a maintenance system issue at their bank which resulted in the failure of all payments being processed at that time. The third party had not received any notification of the error from the bank until 23 August 2024, and because of the error, immediately carried out a manual check to identify which payments remained outstanding and ensure the impact to consumers was minimal. They explained that due to this issue outside of their control, some of the claims were processed beyond the 45-day payment deadline. They said of the claims that exceeded the 45-day payment deadline, 43.4% had been processed before the banking error and 56.6% were processed after. Of those claims processed before the banking error, 53% were delayed due to the bank processing error directly. A further 45% were delayed due to an internal, human processing error, impacted by serial number checks; however, they highlighted that the error was not due to a lack of adequate resources available to administer the promotion and had since implemented measures to ensure the same error would not occur in future promotions. The remainder of the claims that fell outside the 45-day payment timeframe were due to the provision of incorrect bank details by the consumer.
Of the cashback payments made after the banking error, 99% of claims exceeded the 45-day timeframe due to a backlog within their payments team caused by the repercussions of the bank processing error, that affected claims at various stages of the claim process. They explained claims in the backlog would not have had the full 45 days from the date of notification of the error and therefore may only have had a few days before they went outside the 45-day timeframe. They said those payments were made between one and nine days after the 45-day deadline.
In addition, 1% of those claims which fell outside the 45-day payment timeframe were due to the provision of incorrect bank details by the consumer. They said, in those instances, the length of time it took consumers to respond was outside of their control and in some instances substantial delays in a response from a consumer would cause delays to the payment, resulting in claims being paid outside of the 45 days.
They further highlighted that the payment delays were not due to a failure in meeting the response rate or in estimating the likely response but instead due to an error outside their control.
They explained that, throughout the claim process, consumers were able to use a function on the claim site that showed the entire process from claim date through to the date the claim was completed. They also said that all affected customers were kept updated throughout the process and their communications included an email on 23 August explaining the delay. They had also sent a further email on the 29 August, advising customers that their payment had now been processed and would soon be available in their bank.
They said they had been willing to provide an assurance that they would review whether they needed to extend their cashback payment timeframe for future promotions.
Assessment
Upheld
The CAP Code stated that promoters were responsible for all aspects and all stages of their promotions and that promoters must conduct their promotions equitably, promptly and efficiently and be seen to deal fairly and honourably with participants and potential participants. Promoters must avoid causing unnecessary disappointment. Additionally, the Code required promoters to ensure that their promotions were conducted under proper supervision and make adequate resources available to administer them, and not to give consumers justifiable grounds for complaint.
The ad explained the different steps that were necessary to fulfil in order to receive the cashback. It stated that it was necessary to purchase a qualifying product within a specific timeframe, make a claim within 1 to 45 days, and that, once a claim had been approved, that participants would receive their cashback within 45 days. The ASA considered that consumers would understand the terms of the promotion to mean that if they had purchased a qualifying product and submitted their claim within the correct time period, they would receive a cashback payment of up to £500 within 45 days of being notified that their claim was successful. We also considered the timeframe within which the cashback payment would be received was a significant condition that would affect a participant’s decision to take part in the promotion.
We understood that of all cashback claims that had been made, approximately 10% had been paid outside of the 45-day timeframe. We understood that the majority of those payments made outside of the 45-day deadline had been affected by a banking error. We further understood that 23% of those claims had been directly impacted by the bank processing error, however, 56% had been delayed due to an internal backlog of payments caused by the banking error. We considered the payment backlog was within Samsung’s control, and although there was a delay, 45 days should still have been a sufficient length of time to allow the payments to be made, and we therefore considered that they had not ensured they administered the promotion fairly. Furthermore, 2% of the total claims, 20% of those claims that fell outside the payment timeframe, were affected by a further internal issue which we acknowledged was due to human error and not a lack of resources. Nevertheless, we considered it was still their responsibility as part of the administration of the process to take into account errors that might occur in the process to ensure consumers did not have justifiable grounds for complaint. We considered the number of consumers impacted by issues caused by the administration of the promotion was significant and had, therefore, caused consumers unnecessary disappointment because they did not receive their cashback as described in the terms of the promotion.
We acknowledged that Samsung said consumers were able to track the progress of their claims via the dedicated website and that they had sent communications to those consumers affected by the banking error. However, we understood that some complainants could no longer use the tracking tool, had not received any emails updating them on the progress of their claims, nor had they received responses to their queries. In any case, we considered that a participant’s ability to track their claim via the dedicated website did not negate the need for Samsung to pay the cashback within the 45-day timeframe as stipulated in the terms of the promotion.
Because a significant number of consumers had not received their cashback payment within the timeframe set out in the terms, we concluded the promotion had not been administered fairly and breached the Code.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 8.1, 8.2 and 8.14 (Promotional marketing).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd t/a Samsung to ensure they did not cause unnecessary disappointment and that their promotions were administered fairly by ensuring they adhered to their promotional terms.
