The Advertising Standards Authority (the "ASA") issued a ruling on 31 July 2024 against WHG (International) Ltd t/a William Hill Online for two adverts which did not communicate all of the significant terms and conditions of the promotion.
The Advertisement
In April 2024, two adverts for William Hill were seen and later complained of.
The first advert (Ad A) was a sponsored search advertisement on Bing. The advert included text stating “Bet £10[,] Get £60 Welcome Bonus […]” and a link to a second advert with further information (Ad B).
Ad B was on the William Hill website, and featured a banner reading “New Customer Offer. Get £60 From A Minimum £10 Bet” with a "Join Here" button underneath. Small-print text appeared underneath the button which stated "Payment methods & country restrictions apply. Full T&Cs apply[,]" the full terms and conditions referred to were featured lower down the page in small print. Included in these terms was text stating "This promotion is not available to new accounts where funds are paid into by […] [specified E-wallet providers…]"
The complainant argued the ad was misleading and that the promotion breached the CAP Code. They believed the restriction on use of E-wallet providers was a significant condition of the promotion which was not included in Ad A and was not sufficiently prominent in Ad B.
William Hill
William Hill provided context to the restriction by explaining that certain payment options were restricted to minimise consumers participating in the offer multiple times and argued this was common across the industry. They had previously identified e-wallet providers as being limited in their ability to match ownership of the payment method with a registered gambling account holder (increasing the risk of the offer being taken advantage of multiple times accordingly). Further, they argued, only 97 of the 3,383 customers that participated in the promotion after accessing Ad B via Ad A, used restricted payment methods.
Ad A
William Hill's understanding was that for ads with a significant limit in space with a click-through option to access further information, they would be able to place significant conditions on the landing page with less important conditions one click away. They explained that Ad A was significantly limited in available space and so was limited in the amount of conditions that could be displayed. Accordingly, Ad A clicked through to a landing page which contained information regarding payment method restrictions.
However, William Hill accepted that the initial advert should have indicated that terms and conditions would apply to the promotion and that Ad A had not done so. They reviewed and updated Ad A accordingly, and planned to incorporate such phrasing into future ads.
Ad B
Ad B was intended to be accessed either directly or through Ad A. Accordingly, the ad had been structured to include a headline, key qualifying criteria, and the full terms and conditions. William Hill provided that the terms and conditions were in a font larger than the key qualifying criteria and, depending on device specifications, would have been either immediately visible or viewable if customers scrolled down slightly.
William Hill believed Ad B to clearly and prominently display the key qualifying criteria and included the statement “Payment methods & country restrictions apply. Full T&Cs apply”. The company argued the placement of the wording (directly under the offer) clearly showed payment restrictions would apply, was sufficiently prominent for any consumer to see, and conveyed that the promotion would not accept all payment methods (encouraging consumers to review the terms before opting for the offer).
William Hill stated that while they had considered whether the exclusion of certain payment options would amount to a significant condition (and therefore should be included in the key criteria at the top of Ad B), they believed this information to be extensive and would therefore take up significant space. Further, they argued, the text stating “Payment methods & country restrictions apply. Full Ts&Cs apply” was sufficient to alert customers to the payment method restrictions in place, allowing customers to understand the promotion and flag the choice to review the full terms and conditions lower on the page should they wish to investigate further, here, a full list of excluded payment methods was provided under the heading "Key Terms."
They did not believe the exclusion of payment methods at the top of Ad B to be misleading, particularly as the full terms and conditions were prominently displayed on the same page.
Assessment
The complaint was upheld. The CAP Code states that marketing communications referring to promotions must communicate all significant conditions where the omission of such conditions would be likely to mislead. Such significant conditions can include information on how to participate and applicable restrictions such as restrictions on payment method. Certain payment options being excluded meant that new customers who used certain payment methods would not receive the promised £60 bonus. The ASA considered this a significant condition, the omission of which was likely to mislead consumers.
Ad A contained no information on payment method restrictions, and while it did contain a link to Ad B (which contained this information), the code requires significant conditions (likely to mislead if omitted) to be stated in all marketing featuring a promotion. The ad was not sufficiently limited by space to justify such a significant condition being omitted.
While Ad B did include text stating that “Payment methods & country restrictions apply. Full Ts&Cs apply[,]” the ASA did not consider this sufficiently clear to consumers that certain payment methods would not receive the £60 bonus. Notably, the ASA highlighted that no link to the relevant section of the terms and conditions was included, so it was unclear where the information could be found. To find all the relevant information on payment restrictions, customers were required to read the small print of the "How to take part" heading as well as some of the "Key terms" section. This was insufficiently prominent for a significant condition and so easy for consumers to overlook.
The ASA concluded the ads were misleading and breached the code. Ad A had breached CAP Code rules 8.2, 8.17, 8.17.1, 8.17.7, and 8.18 while Ad B was found to have breached rules 3.1, 3.10, 8.2, 8.17, 8.17.1, and 8.17.7. William Hill were told to ensure significant conditions were included in future marketing referring to promotions where it would be likely to mislead consumers were those terms to be omitted or listed in an insufficiently prominent place. The ads must not appear again in the form complained of.
Comment
This case is an important reminder that it is not only important that significant conditions be available to consumers, but that they are sufficiently prominent. Highlighting key terms and using linked content to ensure consumers are able to easily access relevant terms is central to ensuring that customers are not being misled by such omissions. While the ASA accepts that ad space can be limited and prevent all the relevant information being included, be wary of relying on this exception without caution. Including language such as "T&Cs Apply" can be an important safeguard for both companies and consumers.
Co-authored by Rachel Lawson, trainee solicitor at CMS
Social Media cookies collect information about you sharing information from our website via social media tools, or analytics to understand your browsing between social media tools or our Social Media campaigns and our own websites. We do this to optimise the mix of channels to provide you with our content. Details concerning the tools in use are in our Privacy Notice.