Three adverse ASA rulings cause legal headache for Coral Interactive

This article was produced by Olswang LLP, which joined with CMS on 1 May 2017.

This month, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has published three rulings against Coral Interactive (Gibraltar) Ltd in respect of its advertisements. The first two rulings relate to adverts created as part of Coral Interactive's Euro 2016 campaign and illustrate the importance of ensuring that gambling promotions are not contradictory and do not cause any unnecessary disappointment.

Time Restricted Offer

The first ruling concerned two advertisements, consisting of an email and a pop up banner on Coral Interactive's website. The email stated "Bet £/€ 10 on the correct score for tomorrow's highlight game, England v Wales, and if your selection loses you'll get a £/€ 10 free bet*" and included a hyperlink stating "Bet now >>”. At the bottom of the email, further text stated that "Terms and Conditions Apply... Offer valid to bets struck from 8pm BST on the day before the nominated game until kick-off" (emphasis added).

Similarly, the pop up banner stated "J'adore le Score! Bet £10 on correct Score. Get a £10 Free Bet if your selection loses" and also had a hyperlink stating "Bet Now". In addition, the banner had a hyperlink to the “Terms and Conditions” which included an identical statement relating to the time restriction.

Two complainants challenged whether the email and pop up banner were misleading, as customers were only eligible for the free bet if they placed their bets after 8pm on the day before the match, and that this restriction was not made sufficiently clear in the promotions.

The ASA held that a number of the CAP Code rules had been breached, notably rule 3.9, which states that "marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify", and rule 3.10, which states that "qualifications must be presented clearly". In respect of the email, the ASA noted that it had been sent the day before the England v Wales match and that the “Bet Now” hyperlink was prominent within the body of the email. The ASA therefore found that recipients of the email would understand that they were eligible for the promotion if they placed their bets at any time between receipt of the email and the start of the match.

Whilst the terms and conditions at the bottom of the email stated that valid bets could only be made from 8pm on the day before the nominated game until kick-off, the ASA believed that the text was not sufficiently prominent to counter the overall impression that any bet placed after receipt of the email would be eligible for the offer. The fact that (i) the consumer had to scroll down to see the time restriction, and (ii) it could be easily overlooked, both contributed to the term not being sufficiently prominent. The ASA found that the time-restriction was a significant condition and therefore should have been included within the main body of the advert.

In respect of the pop up banner, the ASA found that consumers would likely understand that they were eligible for the promotion if they placed their bets at any time before the start of the match. Again, the ASA noted that there was a hyperlink, taking consumers to the full terms and conditions, which included the 8pm restriction.

However, the ASA found that, whilst the restriction was one click away from the advert, it was not made sufficiently prominent to counter the impression that the offer was already available to consumers. Therefore, the time restriction should have been included in the main body of the promotion.

The ASA's full report of this hearing can be found here.

Targeted Promotion

The second ruling concerned an email sent by Coral Interactive promoting a free bet offer. Three individuals challenged whether the promotion was misleading as, after placing their bets, they were informed that they were not eligible to participate in the offer. Coral submitted that the email was intended to be a targeted promotion for selected customers which, through human error, had been sent to some customers who were not eligible for free bet offers.

The ASA found that Coral Interactive had fallen foul of rule 3.1, which states that marketing materials must not materially mislead, as the email was addressed to the name of the recipient who would therefore expect to be able to take advantage of the offer. The ASA also found that Coral Interactive had breached rule 8.2 of the CAP Code which states 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." As some recipients were not eligible for the promotion, Coral had caused these customers unnecessary disappointment.

The ASA's full report of this hearing can be found here.

Time Restricted Offer and Targeted Promotion

The third and more recent Coral Interactive ruling involved an email which was sent to recipients after the promotion had expired. The email advertised a welcome offer whereby players could bet £5 and receive a £20 free bet, and was challenged on the basis that a player was informed, after placing the £5 bet, that the offer had expired.

Coral submitted that, again, due to human error, its third party email provider had sent the expired email to individuals. At the time when the email was sent by the third party provider, the only sign up offer which was available to new players was one for the Grand National. In any event, as the complainant had already participated in the Grand National offer, the complainant was not eligible for another sign up offer.

The ASA found that the recipient of the email promotion would have expected to be able to take advantage of the £20 free bet offer. As this was not the case, because (i) the offer was replaced by a subsequent welcome offer and (ii) the complainant was not able to enjoy more than one welcome offer, the advert caused unnecessary disappointment. In addition, Coral Interactive had not dealt fairly with the complainant. Furthermore, as the email suggested that the individual could take advantage of the £20 free bet offer, it was misleading. As with the second ruling, Coral Interactive had fallen foul of rules 3.1 and 8.2 of the CAP Code.

The ASA's full report of this hearing can be found here.

Comment

These rulings again highlight the importance of placing (where possible) significant conditions, including those about how to participate, within the main body of a promotion. Promoters should also ensure that such significant conditions are made prominent and do not contradict the main promotion. Furthermore, targeted promotions must not misleadingly imply that an offer is open to everyone, unless that is the case, and so avoid causing any unnecessary disappointment. Promoters are also reminded that they remain liable for the acts of their third party affiliates and providers.