William Hill has been rapped by the Advertising Standards Authority over a misleading TV advert.
An advert shown in the UK on September 15, 2017, included a voice-over describing a “2 Clear” promotion with the sports betting firm. Should a horse win by two lengths or more, customers would get a 15 per cent free bet bonus on winnings.
The ad stated that the offer was available on all live races shown on ITV, but a complaint that it wasn’t made clear enough to customers that the promotion only applied to races with six or more runners was upheld.
William Hill has been told not to air the advert in its current form again.
The firm stated that while understanding the concern of the complainant, they considered the six-runners caveat information was readily available so that customers could make an informed choice over whether to take part in the promotion.
The ASA stated: “We understood there would be instances where a consumer might decide to place a bet on a race and not know until the start of the race that their bet would no longer be eligible for the bonus as the race no longer had the requisite amount of runners.
“We considered that this was a significant qualification that should have been prominently included in the main body of the ad and that it was not sufficiently clear for it to be presented in the small text at the bottom of the screen.
“We told William Hill to make significant conditions to offers in their ads clear and to ensure that they do not contradict the claims they qualified.”
The ASA did not uphold a complaint made concerning a paid-for Facebook post advertising gambling website playojo.com in October 2017.
The ad featured an anime-style cartoon of a woman wearing a low-cut top with text stating: “Get up to 5x more when you deposit today. Deposit £10+ and get 50 Free Spins with no wagering.” A link at the bottom of the ad stated: “Learn more”.
A two-fold complaint was made that the ad appealed to under-18s and that the terms and conditions of the offer were not made clear, but the ASA felt the imagery would not appeal to children in particular and that it did not mislead.
