Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
Two sponsored posts on Facebook news feed, a sponsored Google search result and a web page for a promotion on the betting website www.unibet.co.uk:
a. Text in the first Facebook sponsored post stated "Will Man City beat Liverpool? Join Unibet for a £20 Risk Free Bet on today's game! MANCHESTER CITY V LIVERPOOL £20 RISK FREE BET ... Open an account today and we will cover the risk of your first bet up to £20".
b. Text in the second Facebook sponsored post stated "Will Man Utd beat Sunderland? Join Unibet for a £20 Risk Free Bet on today's game! SUNDERLAND V MANCHESTER UNITED £20 Risk Free Bet ... Open an account today and we will cover the risk of your first bet up to £20".
c. Sponsored search result on Google stated "Unibet £20 Risk Free Bet - Join Today and Bet on Football ... Great Odds & Live Betting".
Text on the landing page stated "Placed a bet at the stadium? CLAIM YOUR £20 Risk Free Bet ....... #ARMCHAIREXPERTS ... 1 REGISTER Open a Unibet account today 2 DEPOSIT Deposit fund using your preferred method payment 3 PLACE A BET If it loses, we will refund your first bet up to £20 BET NOW [link]". The ad also featured a tab titled 'Terms and Conditions' that contained text stating "The 'Unibet Rules' is the set of terms and conditions that constitute and govern contractual relationship, as described herein, and that the parties, as provided herein, you agree to accept. More info [link]".
Issue
The ASA received three complaints. The complainants, who understood that players were required to place further bets at specified odds in order to withdraw funds and that they would receive a refund of the stake in bonus rather than cash if the bet was lost, challenged whether:
1. the claim "risk-free bet" in ads (a), (b) and (c) respectively was misleading;
2. ads (a) and (b) made significant conditions of the promotion sufficiently clear; and
3. one complainant challenged whether ad (c) was misleading because it did not make clear that further bets at specified odds must be placed in order to withdraw the refunded stake.
Response
1. & 2. Unibet (International) Ltd explained that "risk free bet" was a term commonly used in the gambling industry for bonuses of this nature and that they offered "risk free" bet offers as a welcome bonus for new customers. They stated that the nature of the offer was explained in clear and easily comprehensible language in their bonus terms and condition, which were easily accessible by customers.
They stated that the intended meaning of the phrase "we will cover the risk of your first bet up to £20" was that if the customer lost the first bet, the stake would be returned for further turnover and therefore this would be considered "risk free".
Unibet explained that if a customer won the first bet, the bonus would be completed and they would be able to withdraw the winnings immediately as cash. If a customer lost their first bet, the stake would then be returned as bonus money and this could only be withdrawn after the customer completed the bonus turnover requirements. For example, if a customer lost £20 in the first bet, they would receive £20 in bonus funds. Unibet provided screenshots of the "risk free bet" offer journey from registration of the account to the completion of the bonus offer, in support of their explanation.
Referring to a requirement stated in the bonus terms and conditions "To withdraw your refunded stake you would have to wager it 6x (e.g. if you receive a £10 bonus, you must wager £60 to fulfil the terms)", Unibet explained that it was not the case that six unique bets were required to be placed as part of the turnover, but rather the subsequent bet placed in and with the turnover must be six times in value of the refunded stake. They stated that after the stake had been returned to the customer account as bonus as a result of losing the first bet, the customer could use this bonus fund to place further bets in the turnover; they would not need to wager their own money during the turnover process.
Unibet further explained that if the customer lost their entire bonus balance before the turnover was completed at any stage after receipt of the "risk free" bet bonus, the bonus process would have ended given that the customer would have lost all the bonus money for further wagering. They stated that if a customer only lost some of their bonus money, they would be able to continue to wager until the turnover process was completed and won a cumulative amount of, for instance, £120 during the process if the stake of the first bet was £20.
Unibet stated that due to limited space in social media posts, and considering common industry practices, material information concerning the turnover requirements would not be visible or clear to consumers and therefore it was common practice that such requirements were not directly included in these posts, unlike ads in other media such as emails and banners. Unibet stated that the terms and conditions which detailed the turnover requirements were always easily accessible to customers.
They stated that ads (a) and (b) included a link which directed users to their registration page, where it was clearly presented that a bonus would only be received if users opted to accept the bonus and the applicable terms and conditions. They further stated that the bonus terms and conditions explained, in clear and comprehensible language, the requirements of the risk free bets and customers were made aware of the turnover requirements in a transparent manner.
Further, Unibet stated that it was unclear to them why one of the complainants found ad (a) to be misleading, on the basis that they were clearly aware of and understood the turnover requirements. They did not consider that the Facebook posts were misleading as they believed that the bonus terms and conditions set out the nature of the risk free bet and the turnover requirements in a transparent manner. However, they stated that they were willing to amend the ads accordingly to include the reference "T&C apply, +18, www.gambleaware.co.uk" in order to alert consumers that the bet was subject to certain terms.
3. Unibet stated that ad (c) was a sponsored post on Google and said that their general terms and conditions had been linked to the landing page in error, instead of the bonus terms and conditions.
They stated that they had amended the landing page accordingly by including the reference "Bonus T&C apply. Bonus must be wagered 6x before withdrawal. 18+. Gamebleaware.co.uk" and a link to the bonus terms and conditions.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA noted Unibet's view that it was not misleading to describe the offer as a "risk free bet" on the basis that the stake from the first bet placed would be returned to the customer in the form of a bonus if they had lost this first bet.
However, we considered that most consumers, upon viewing the claim "risk free bet" in ads (a), (b) and (c), would understand that they would be able to place a first bet of £20 without the risk of loss or significant exclusions, particularly in the absence of a qualification in the ads to state that the "risk free bet" offer would be subject to terms and conditions. We further considered that when the claim was read in conjunction with the wording "we will cover the risk of your first bet up to £20" in ads (a) and (b), most consumers would expect that the stake from their first bet would be refunded and could then be withdrawn as cash.
We noted that consumers were required to place the first bet with their own money after the registration for a new account as the first condition of the offer and their winnings could be withdrawn in cash if they had won the first bet. Although consumers would not be required to wager further money of their own during the turnover process if they had lost the first bet, they would be required to use the returned bonus to place further bets in order to qualify for the withdrawal of the stake refunded as cash. Further, the bets placed during the turnover must be at specified odds of 1.4 or greater as stipulated by the terms and conditions of the offer. We noted Unibet's comments that the turnover process would only be completed if the customer had won cumulated winnings of the value that was six times the amount of the first bet. We further noted from the terms of the offer that the bonus received after losing the first bet would expire after 60 days and if they did not complete the turnover requirements within this time, the remaining bonus funds and any winnings from subsequent bets during the turnover would be lost.
Unless the customer had cumulated winnings from subsequent bets during the turnover process that were six times the value of the stake of the first bet, it was possible that they would not be qualified to withdraw the refunded stake under the terms of the offer if they had lost the bonus amount during the process or if they did not achieve cumulated winnings of the required value within the offer expiry date.
We considered the requirements in the bonus terms outlined above that consumers would need to fulfil to qualify for the withdrawal of the refunded stake in cash, in conjunction with the possibility of losing the entire bonus funds during the turnover process and therefore becoming ineligible to make such a withdrawal, were likely to contradict consumers' understanding of the "risk free" bet offer within the context of the ads. We therefore concluded that the claim "risk free bet" in the ads were misleading.
On this point, the ads breached 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),
3.9
3.9
Marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.
and
3.10
3.10
Qualifications must be presented clearly.
CAP has published a Help Note on Claims that Require Qualification.
(Qualification).
2. Upheld
Notwithstanding the ASA's assessment on the claim "risk free bet" outlined in Issue 1, we considered that the requirement to place further bets at specified odds using the returned bonus funds in order to withdraw the stake from the lost first bet in cash to be a significant condition that was likely to affect consumers' understanding of the nature of the offer. Such a significant condition should either have been made clear in the ads or the ads should have clearly indicated the offer was subject to significant condition and directed consumers to the significant condition if the ad was limited by space. We considered this was of particular importance given the possibility that consumers might not be able to recover the stake of the first bet, and was therefore likely to influence their decision on whether or not to take up the offer.
In addition, we noted that the landing page linked to from the ads was an account registration page that included a further link which consumers would be required to click on in order to access the full terms of the offer, including material information that consumers would require in order to make an informed decision about the offer.
We noted Unibet's comments that ads (a) and (b) were significantly limited in space and their assertion that it was common industry practice to display the ads in this manner. However, given the omission of a qualification in the ads to indicate that the offer was subject to terms and conditions, some of which were particularly significant, and the fact that the full terms were more than one click away from the ads, we considered material information about the offer had not been presented clearly enough to consumers in order to enable them to make an informed decision. For these reasons, we concluded the ads were misleading under the CAP Code.
On this point, the ads breached 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),
3.9
3.9
Marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.
and
3.10
3.10
Qualifications must be presented clearly.
CAP has published a Help Note on Claims that Require Qualification.
(Qualification), and
8.18
8.18
Marketing communications that include a promotion and are significantly limited by time or space must include as much information about significant conditions as practicable and must direct consumers clearly to an easily accessible alternative source where all the significant conditions of the promotion are prominently stated. Participants should be able to retain those conditions or easily access them throughout the promotion.
(Significant Conditions for Promotions).
3. Upheld
We noted that the Google sponsored search result in ad (c) did not specify that terms and conditions would be applicable to the offer and considered that most consumers would understand from the Google sponsored search result that the offer would not be subject to significant limitations and exclusions. For the same reasons set out in Issue 2, we considered that the requirement to place further bets at specified odds to be a significant condition that was likely to affect consumers' understanding of the nature of the offer and therefore their decision whether or not to take advantage of it.
Although a Google sponsored search result could be considered to be significantly limited in space, we noted that text in the search result merely stated "Great Odds & Live Betting" with no indication of the significant condition and that terms and conditions would apply. Further, in order for consumers to access the terms of the bonus offer and become aware of the requirement to place further bets at specified odds, they could only do so by clicking on the "BET NOW" button on the landing page and then the additional "bonus terms and conditions" link on the subsequent landing registration page. This meant that the offer terms were three clicks away from the Google sponsored search result. We noted Unibet’s comments that the general terms and conditions had been erroneously linked to the landing page, rather than the bonus terms. Nevertheless, we considered that this significant condition should have been made clear in the Google sponsored search result or in the main body of the landing page titled "Placed a bet at the stadium? CLAIM YOUR £20 Risk Free Bet". On this basis, we concluded that ad (c) was misleading.
On this point, the ad breached 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),
3.9
3.9
Marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.
and
3.10
3.10
Qualifications must be presented clearly.
CAP has published a Help Note on Claims that Require Qualification.
(Qualification), and
8.18
8.18
Marketing communications that include a promotion and are significantly limited by time or space must include as much information about significant conditions as practicable and must direct consumers clearly to an easily accessible alternative source where all the significant conditions of the promotion are prominently stated. Participants should be able to retain those conditions or easily access them throughout the promotion.
(Significant Conditions for Promotions).
Action
The ads must not appear again in their current forms. We told Unibet (International) Ltd to ensure that they did not use the claim "risk free bet" to describe this bonus offer in future ads and that future ads made clear all material information and significant conditions of the offer, such as the requirement to place further bets at specified odds.
