William Hill Receives ASA Warning After Misleading Promotion

The UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has upheld a complaint against William Hill for a promotion which included incorrect wording in its mobile app.

Misleading text

William Hill showed an ad promoting an offer for its “Marble Race Live” on May 17. The headline text stated: “Enjoy £40 on us! When you opt in and stake £20.” Underneath the headline text, small text stated the terms and conditions, including the text “Min. £40 stake on Marble Race Live.” The complainant argued the headline text was misleading, because it did not make it clear that the stake required to receive the offer was £40 rather than £20.

William Hill holds hands up

In its response to the complaint, William Hill acknowledged the banner displayed incorrect wording, which contradicted the nature of the promotion. The mistake appeared in the mobile app and web banner due to a manual edit made during the resizing for layout process, and the staking requirement was accidentally changed from £40 to £20 due to a typographical error.

William Hill said the ad in question was the only one that was affected and was shown exclusively in the mobile app to a targeted group of up to 3,057 customers. The promotion was said to be live for only a short period, from May 17-19. William Hill outlined to the ASA that customers who clicked on the banner were then presented with the full and accurate terms and conditions before opting in. For that reason, William Hill argued there was a low risk of any detriment to players.

Complaint upheld

The ASA ruled the ad was likely to mislead consumers, on the grounds that it did not reflect the actual terms and conditions of the promotion. The ASA recognised the small print referred to the correct staking value that was necessary to participate in the promotion. However, the ASA considered the higher staking requirement contradicted rather than clarified the headline claim. On that basis, the ASA concluded the ad was misleading.

The ASA ruled the ad must not appear again in the form complained of. William Hill has been instructed to ensure any claims made about promotional offers in future must not contradict the terms and conditions applied to them.

A simple case to rule

This is a much more straightforward case than many of the other ASA rulings we often see made against operators. Complaints are often regarding whether any sports stars or public figures involved in the ads could appeal to people under the legal gambling age of 18, or whether the ads in question could potentially promote harmful gambling.

In this case, the operator has simply made a mistake and was in no position to argue against it. While errors such as these can potentially cause reputational damage for an operator, and should certainly never be repeated, it does not appear to have caused any significant damage and as the promotion was no longer live anyway, the ASA’s ruling is not particularly relevant. Its warning about future conduct is important though.

Where William Hill is actually fortunate is that the banner ad mistake encouraged players to bet less than what was required to claim the promotion rather than more. If players had been encouraged to stake £40 for a £20 qualifying bet for example, and the player lost that qualifying bet, this could have led to a much bigger problem, with possible complaints being made to the regulator, the Gambling Commission.