ASA raps William Hill over payment restrictions in advert, Coral cleared
A single complainant raised an issue over a paid-for search advert for William Hill, detailing a welcome bonus. This offered new customers a £60 bonus when depositing and betting £10.
The complaint focused on payment restrictions for the promotion and the lack of clarity over this. Users that clicked the ad were directed to the William Hill website displaying further details. Small print on the website set out that some payment methods were exempt from the promo, including Apple Pay.
The complainant said restrictions on Apple Pay was a significant condition of the promotion that was omitted, adding that it was not sufficiently prominent in the advert. This complaint also challenged whether the advert was misleading for the same reason.
William Hill stands firm over T&Cs
William Hill hit back, saying such restrictions are commonplace in the gambling industry. It also noted how of the 3,383 customers that clicked on the promotion, only 97 deposited with Apple Pay and other restricted methods.
The bookmaker also noted restricted space in ads mean it cannot include all information for each promo. It added that customers can click through the initial paid-for search advert to read the full conditions on its website, with these “clear and prominent”. Other restricted payment methods included Skrill, PayPal, Paysafe and Neteller.
Describing the information on its website as “extensive”, William Hill said it was not in breach of advertising rules.
ASA says advert “likely to mislead”
However, the ASA disagreed, saying the omission of restriction information on the initial ad was “likely to mislead”. The ASA flagged how the search ad did not reference any payment restrictions, with this only available after being clicked.
In addition, the ASA said reference to payment method restrictions near the top of the promo page on the William Hill website did not make sufficiently clear to customers the full conditions of the offer.
“That text was not linked to the relevant text in the “key terms” section further down the page”, the ASA said. “It was therefore not clear where that information could be found.”
As such, the ASA ruled the advert breached regulations. It ordered William Hill to not show the advert again in its current form and also to ensure future marketing communications make conditions clear to customers.
Ladbrokes Coral in the clear
In a separate case, the ASA ruled Ladbrokes Coral did not breach regulations with a mobile digital billboard.
The advert in question featured a man dressed in the style of an attendee of a horse racing event, looking through a pair of binoculars, promoting Coral for the Cheltenham Festival. The digital billboard was mounted on a parked van which was seen in Cheltenham during the horse racing meeting.
A single complainant challenged whether the ads had been responsibly placed. It flagged how the van had been parked close to two schools.
Coral said it followed ASA rules by not parking the van within a hundred metres of a school. However, it accepted the mobile format of the ads, combined with issues such as limited parking spaces, the “digivans” could sometimes be within two hundred metres of schools.
Eight vans were deployed during the festival under instructions to show material between the hours of 9am and 5pm. Screens were positioned towards race-going traffic before the start of racing and repositioned for when race-goers left the racecourse.
Following the complaint, Coral said it re-briefed partners over advertising restrictions. This is despite not having been parked within a hundred metres of a school in the instance complained about.
ASA sides with Coral
In its assessment, the ASA acknowledged digivans took up various locations throughout the day. However, morning locations were over 800 metres from a secondary school and a 150-metre walk from a primary school. Furthermore, the ASA noted there was no direct line of sight from the primary school to the digivan’s locations.
As such, it considered it unlikely people under 18 comprised more than 25% of the audience.
“Because the digivans had not been parked within a hundred metres of a school and with no direct line of sight, and because the displays were only activated after 9am, and remained 200 metres away from sensitive locations where possible, we considered that appropriate steps had been taken to comply with the relevant media placement restrictions,” the ASA said.
The ASA concluded the digivans did not breach advertising regulations and Coral was cleared over the matter.