The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) recently received two individual complaints about promotional emails sent by Betfred in July of this year.
Of these two complaints, one was upheld and the other was not which means that the offending email cannot appear again in its current form.
Betfred has disseminated an email to new customers which offered the following:
BET£10, GET £30 Free on Sports Welcome to the Betfred family, here’s the username you registered with [username included]. You are now able to take advantage of our fantastic Stake £10, Get £30 welcome offer!
Simple [sic] stake £10 or more at odds of evens or greater in a single transaction and you will receive £30 in free bets! You can use it however you please across any sport.
The bonus will be credited within 48 hours of your qualifying bet being settled.
One complainant attempted to claim the offer but was unable to get the free bet because they beleived that the rules were that bets had to be made at cumulative odds. The complainant challenged whether the ad was misleading.
The response from Betfred to this complaint was that the ad clearly stated “stake £10 or more at odds or evens or greater to be able to take advantage of the offer”. They went on to explain in details about cumulative betting (which I have no understanding of, but can be read here in the full adjudication).
The second complaint was unable to claim the free bet because it was only applicable to the first bet made by a player and as such, challenged if the ad made this sufficiently clear.
The response to this complaint was that the player in question did not qualify because the minimum odds of evens or above criteria was not met.
They went on to explain that the T&C’s of the offer were one click away from the original advert. This was accessible via a link on the More Info text and it was here that they would find the condition of the offer that stated “You must stake £10 or more (or currency equivalent) at cumulative odds of Evens (2.0) or greater on your first bet”.
The first part of the complaint was not upheld but the second part was upheld. It breached CAP codes 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.9 (Qualifications) and 8.17 and 8.17.1 (Significant conditions for promotions).