ASA rules Betfair television advert ‘misleading’ despite qualifying wording being visible in advert

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

The Advertising Standards Authority (“ASA”) determined that the imagery used in a Betfair television advertisement was misleading to viewers despite qualifying wording being visible during the advert. The ASA ultimately ruled that the advert was misleading to viewers on account of the terms of the promotion contradicting the general impression of the advert.

Advertisement

• A TV ad for Betfair featuring a man at a football match reading a message on his mobile, which stated "Man Utd Win 3-1 You Win £120.00". On-screen text stated "New customer enhanced price. Liverpool v Rubin Kazan to win 4/1". A voice-over stated, "Betfair are offering all new customers an enhanced price on the big match". Text at the bottom of the screen stated "£10 max stake on stated bet, winnings paid in cash, enhanced winnings paid in free bets within 24 hours, multiple bets excluded".
• The advert had been approved by the ad-clearance company, Clearcast.
• The ASA ruled that the advert was in breach of BCAP Code rules 3.1 and 3.2 (Misleading advertising) and 3.10 (Qualification).
• ASA ruled that ad must not be broadcast again in its current form.

Issue

• A viewer raised a complaint that the advertisement did not make it sufficiently clear that ‘enhanced winnings’ would be in the form of free bets. The ASA on review also raised further issues with the advert.
• In response to the initial complaint, Betfair stated that cash winnings would be subject to market odds (e.g. 7/20) whilst enhanced winnings would use the advertised 4/1 rate. Winnings would be paid in cash at market odds, whilst enhanced winnings would be paid for in free bets in order to make up the remainder of the winnings owed under the advertised 4/1 odds. For example if a viewer made a bet of £10, the viewer would receive £13.50 in cash (£3.50 winnings and £10 stake) and £36.50 in free bets to bring the overall pay out to £40 which would be the equivalent of odds of 4/1.
• The ASA assessed the advert and considered Betfair’s response and determined that whilst the on-screen text did in fact state that winnings would be paid in cash and enhanced winnings in free bets, it was not made sufficiently clear how ‘winnings’ were determined in relation to ‘enhanced winnings’. The ASA determined that how ‘winnings’ and ‘enhanced winnings’ were calculated was important for determining how much in cash/free bets a viewer could expect to receive.
• ASA took the view that it was not made clear to the viewer how these two separate rates would be applied to the viewer’s wager and therefore a viewer might reasonably expect the whole of its wager to be subject to the 4/1 rate.
• The ASA also determined that because it was not clear how winnings and enhanced winnings were determined a viewer might reasonably expect all of his winnings to be cash winnings.
• The ASA concluded that the advert was misleading.

Analysis and going forward

• Perhaps the most important aspect to this ruling is that Clearcast had approved the Betfair advert before it was broadcast. Betting companies should therefore be aware that an approval from Clearcast does not guarantee immunity against adverse ASA rulings.
• This ruling also highlights how if a betting company intends to broadcast a promotion which utilises various ‘rates/odds’ then the company in question needs to ensure that the interplay between the rates and how they are applied to a player’s wager need to be made very clear.
• What also needs to be made clear is in what form different rewards are paid out. As was the case above, Betfair did not make it sufficiently clear that cash would be paid out using market odds whilst free bets would be paid out using the advertised odds.
• Another key issue is that, even with the explanatory on-screen wording, the ASA determined that the imagery used in the advert gave the impression that winnings would be paid in cash and not free bets. This was therefore misleading as this was not how the promotion worked in reality.