ASA reprimands prize draw operator for “unfairly” running promotions

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has upheld a complaint made against prize draw operator Royalux Competitions after a complaint was made that it had held an unfair draw last summer.

The prize draw in question was for a garden makeover worth £5,000, in addition to a further £2,000 in cash, with the draw appearing on the Royalux website on 11 August 2024.

The draw’s terms and conditions stated that the competition was open to anyone aged over 18 in the UK, except for Royalux employees and “any agents or suppliers of [Royalux] who are professionally connected with the competition or its administration”. 

Any immediate family members or households connected to either of the two excluded groups were also barred from entering and winning the prize draw.  

A complaint arose after the garden makeover was awarded to the brother of the garden makeover supplier, leading to questions over the fairness of the draw. 

Royalux stated that its employees were excluded from the draw, which was conducted via a random number generator live on Facebook, although that stipulation didn’t extend to any third-party suppliers. 

The company argued that it reserved the right to change its terms and conditions as it saw fit and that the decision was final, believing the prize draw had been administered fairly. 

Royalux added that it had already purchased the £5,000 garden makeover from the third-party supplier before the promotion took place, so therefore it owned that prize. 

The Scottish operator also claimed that it had not received any complaints directly regarding the result of the draw.

The ASA interpreted the original terms and conditions to mean that the brother of the garden supplier shouldn’t have been able to win the prize draw.  

The regulator also noted that Royalux retrospectively changed its terms and conditions after the draw was made in order to make the winner eligible.  

Overall, the ASA found the promotion to be in violation of the CAP Code, which states that promoters must “conduct their promotions equitably, promptly and efficiently”.

The Code adds that promoters must “be seen to deal fairly and honourably with participants and potential participants and avoid causing unnecessary disappointment”.  

The ASA also ruled that the promotion shouldn’t run again in its current form.  

An ASA statement read: “Although Royalux maintained that their terms and conditions gave them the right to change the terms and conditions of the promotion as and when needed, we considered that retrospectively removing an exclusion to allow someone to win who would have otherwise been excluded from taking part under the original terms was not a fair or honourable way to treat participants.  

“Further, it was likely to result in disappointment and gave consumers justifiable grounds for complaint. We therefore concluded that the promotion had not been administered fairly and breached the Code. 

“We told Royalux Competitions Ltd not to administer their promotions unfairly, cause unnecessary disappointment or give consumers grounds for complaint in future – for example, by retrospectively amending terms and conditions to remove exclusions on who could participate.” 

Back in September 2024, the ASA found social casino platform SpinX Games to be in breach of the CAP Code for running misleading adverts on TikTok.