Who: The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), Amazing Giveaways Ltd (Amazing Giveaways) and SP Graham Retail Ltd (Sean Graham)
Where: United Kingdom
When: 13 August 2025 and 27 August 2025
Law stated as at: 11 September 2025
What happened:
The ASA has upheld complaints against two different advertisers regarding the unfair administration of their promotions.
Sole participant receives a prize
Amazing Giveaways posted a prize draw on its social media page for a £3,000 holiday voucher. The complainant saw this prize draw advertised on 27 February 2025 and paid the requisite £5 to enter. Amazing Giveaways’ website later listed the complainant as the only entrant. The complainant believed they had therefore won the draw; however, they did not receive their prize. The complainant contacted Amazing Giveaways and were told that the advertising post had been left “live” in error and that the prize could not be provided due to the lack of entries, which meant that the number of entrant fees submitted for the promotion did not cover the cost of the prize. This was contrary to the terms and conditions of the prize draw, which stated that “the draw will take place, and the prize will be awarded regardless of the number of entries received”. Amazing Giveaways informed the ASA that it was no longer operating and that it had refunded the complainant’s £5 entry fee.
When upholding the complaint against Amazing Giveaways, the ASA referred to the Committee of Advertising Practice’s (CAP) guidance, which states that any promoter that needs to generate sufficient revenue from entry fees to the competition to fund the advertised prize is likely to breach the CAP Code if it subsequently fails to secure the required amount of entrant fees. Promoters must award the prize as it is described in the promotion. The ASA acknowledged that events outside a promoter’s control might result in a promotion differing from initial intentions, but confirmed the expectation on promoters to make appropriate preparations and have sufficient resources to run the promotion as initially planned.
The ASA stated that in this case the complainant was likely to have been caused considerable disappointment, and concluded that the promotion had not been administered fairly. Amazing Giveaways was told to award the prize.
Verbal terms and conditions deemed insufficient
During the 2025 Cheltenham Racing Festival, the bookmakers Sean Graham handed out vouchers for a £5 matched bet directly to consumers. The conditions of use on each voucher stated that the bet could be placed at any Sean Graham betting shop. The complainant attempted to use the voucher on the final day of the festival, but their selected shop refused to accept it as it was the last day of the festival. This was customary practice for Sean Graham vouchers, but the condition had not been specified in the voucher’s terms of use. Sean Graham told the ASA that the distributors were briefed to explain these additional terms of use when the vouchers were handed out.
The ASA confirmed that the omission of significant conditions in a promotion, which includes information about how to participate in a competition or prize draw and the closing date, is likely to mislead and cause unnecessary disappointment. The ASA acknowledged that the additional significant terms were verbally communicated to the distributors, but said that they should also have been stated on the vouchers or made available to consumers via an alternative source that consumers could easily access. The voucher did not refer to any additional terms and conditions set out elsewhere and, in any case, it was not sufficiently limited by time or space to justify the omission of such information. Sean Graham was told to not use the ad in the same form and to ensure that future promotions include all significant conditions and are administered fairly.
Why this matters:
These rulings serve as a reminder that not only the key details of the promotion itself, but also how it will be administered, certainly any significant conditions or information, should be made clear to consumers in the terms and conditions and in advance. Significant conditions or information are those that are likely to mislead the consumer if they are omitted. Such conditions and information must be visible, clear and easily accessible. They cannot be communicated to consumers verbally. Those running promotions or giveaways should always ensure that any prize or benefit offered is awarded as described. Advertisers should also remember that, even if the terms permit cancellation of a prize, they still have a responsibility not to cause unnecessary disappointment or mislead consumers. Without clear, prominent terms setting out acceptable reasons for cancelling or withholding a prize (such as ineligibility of the entrant according to eligibility criteria or entries received outside the stated deadline) the cancellation or withholding of a prize in a promotion will likely breach the CAP Code.
This article was written with the assistance of Oliver Smithson, trainee solicitor at Osborne Clarke.
