Ad description
Two ads for William Hill, both seen on 15 April 2024:
a. A paid-for search ad, seen on Bing, included text stating “Bet £10 Get £60 Welcome Bonus […]”. It linked through to ad (b).
b. A website, www.williamhill.com, featured a heading stating “New Customer Offer. Get £60 From A Minimum £10 Bet” followed by a “Join Here” button. Small print under the button included text stating “Payment methods & country restrictions apply. Full T&C’s apply”. The full terms and conditions were listed in small print further down the page and included text stating “This promotion is not available to new accounts where funds are paid into by […] Apple Pay […]”.
Issue
The complainant who believed that the restriction on the use of Apple Pay was a significant condition of the promotion that had been omitted from ad (a) and was not sufficiently prominent in ad (b), challenged whether the ads were misleading, and the promotion breached the Code.
Response
WHG (International) Ltd t/a William Hill Online (William Hill) explained that they had restricted certain payment options in relation to the offer as a way of minimising the risk of consumers being able to take advantage of the new customer sign-up offer multiple times. Historically they had found that certain e-wallet payment methods, such as Apple Pay and Google Pay, had limitations in matching ownership of that payment method with the registered gambling account owner at the beginning of the customer relationship. This, therefore, increased the risk of people taking up an offer, intended for new customers only, multiple times. They understood that such restrictions were common across the industry. They said that of the 3,383 customers who took up the offer after accessing the link in ad (a) to ad (b), only 97 deposited using excluded payment methods, such as Apple Pay. They provided a copy of the customer journey from ad (b) to the various payment options.
They understood that where ads were significantly limited by space, and readers could click through to more information, it might be acceptable for significant conditions to be on the landing page and less important conditions to be one click away. They believed that ad (a), a search engine ad, was significantly limited in space and therefore could not include all significant conditions. They pointed out that the ad clicked through to the website landing page which did contain information about the payment method restrictions. However, they also understood that the initial ad should always indicate that terms and conditions applied, and they acknowledged that was not the case in ad (a). They said they had reviewed and updated ad (a) so that in future it would include “ts&cs apply” or similar wording to that effect.
In relation to ad (b), they said that it served two purposes: consumers could arrive at that page by clicking through from ad (a); or they could arrive at the page directly and it would be the first time they saw the promotion. They had therefore structured ad (b) in a way which included a headline, key qualifying criteria and full terms and conditions. They said the terms and conditions were in a font larger than the key qualifying criteria and may have been visible immediately or consumers may have had to scroll down slightly depending on their choice of screen size and font size.
They said the key qualifying criteria in ad (b) were clear, prominent and included the qualification “Payment methods & country restrictions apply. Full T&Cs apply”. They believed that wording was sufficiently prominent for any consumer to see, as it was positioned directly under the offer and clearly identified that there were payment restrictions. They believed that conveyed to consumers that not all payment methods would be accepted for the promotion and encouraged consumers to make an informed decision before taking up the offer. They pointed out that the full list of excluded payment methods was provided under the header “Key Terms” where text stated “This promotion is not available to new accounts where funds are paid into by PayPal, Neosurf, Paysafe, Nuvei, Apple Pay, NETELLER, Skrill, ecoPayz, Kalibra/Postpay or William Hill PLUS Card.”
They said they had considered whether the payment exclusions would amount to significant conditions and whether to present them in the key qualifying criteria at the top of ad (b). However, they considered that information was extensive and would have taken up significant space. Furthermore, they believed that the text stating “Payment methods & country restrictions apply. Full Ts&Cs apply” at the top of the ad was sufficient to make consumers aware of payment method restrictions and if they had wanted to check whether their chosen payment method was accepted, they were able to scroll down the page to find that information in the full terms and conditions. They believed that the general reference to “Payment methods restrictions apply” was adequate for consumers to understand the promotion. The omission of the full list of payment method exclusions, therefore, from the top of ad (b) did not make the ad misleading. The full terms and conditions, which they believed were sufficiently prominent and on the same web page, allowed customers to check whether their specific payment method would be accepted.
Assessment
Upheld
The CAP Code stated that all marketing communications referring to promotions must state all applicable significant conditions where their omission was likely to mislead. Significant conditions may, depending on the circumstances, include information about how to participate and technological or other restrictions.
The ASA considered that the fact that certain payment options, including Apple Pay, were excluded from the offer, meaning new customers using that payment method would not receive the £60 welcome bonus, was a significant condition likely to affect a consumer’s understanding about how to participate in the promotion. The omission of that information was likely to mislead.
Ad (a) contained no information regarding certain payment methods being excluded from the offer. Although the ad contained a link through to ad (b), which did contain information about the excluded payment methods, the Code required that significant conditions must be stated in all marketing communications referring to promotions where the omission of that information was likely to mislead consumers. We considered the ad was not sufficiently limited by space to justify the omission of that significant condition.
Ad (b) contained small print under the header “New Customer Offer. Get £60 From a Minimum £10 Bet” including “Payment methods & country restrictions apply. Full Ts&Cs apply”. Further small print down the page appeared under the headers “How to take part:”, “Key terms:”, “Vegas Bonus”, “Sportsbook Bonus” and “Full Terms and Conditions”. In paragraph “c.” under the “Key terms” heading, text stated “This promotion is not available to new accounts where funds are paid into by […]”. A list of payment options followed that included Apple Pay.
We considered that the text “Payment methods […] restrictions apply” at the top of ad (b) did not make sufficiently clear to consumers that if they deposited funds using certain payment methods including Apple Pay, they would not receive the £60 welcome bonus. That text was not linked to the relevant text in the “Key terms” section further down the page, and it was therefore not clear where that information could be found; consumers would have been required to read all the small print under the “How to take part” heading and some under the “Key terms” heading to locate that information. We considered that because the excluded payments information was a significant condition of the promotion, although it was not omitted entirely from ad (b), its position meant that it was easy for consumers to overlook it and was therefore insufficiently prominent.
For those reasons, we concluded that the ads were misleading and the promotion breached the Code.
Ad (a) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 8.2 (Promotional marketing), 8.17, 8.17.1, 8.17.7 and 8.18 (Significant conditions for promotions).
Ad (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.10 (Qualification), 8.2 (Promotional marketing), 8.17, 8.17.1, 8.17.7 (Significant conditions for promotions).
Action
The ads must not appear again in the form complained of. We told WHG (International) Ltd t/a William Hill Online to ensure that their future marketing communications referring to promotions included all significant conditions, where the omission of those conditions, or their positioning in an insufficiently prominent place, was likely to mislead.
CAP Code (Edition 12)
8.2 8.17 8.17.1 8.17.7 8.18 3.1 3.10 8.2
