The ASA has made a recent ruling on a prize draw/competition which highlights why fair and transparent game rules are essential, and why it is generally advisable not to change the game rules once a promotion has started. This ruling can provide learnings for lottery and raffle programmes, too.
Royalux Competitions hosted a prize draw for a £5,000 garden makeover and £2,000 in cash. Royalux Competitions stated that the winner was selected using a random number generator live on Facebook. The winner of the prize draw was the brother of the garden makeover supplier.
A complaint was made to the ASA, claiming that the prize had not been awarded in accordance with the prize draw's terms and conditions, and the complainant questioned whether the promotion had been administered fairly. The terms and conditions stated: "The competition is only open to all residents in the United Kingdom aged 18 years or over except: (a) employees of the Promoter; (b) employees of agents or suppliers of the Promoter, who are professionally connected with the competition or its administration; or (c) members of the immediate families or households of (a) or (b) above."
Royalux Competitions acknowledged that they had changed their terms and conditions several times and because they had reserved the right to do so, they believed that it was within their discretion who they allowed or considered eligible to participate and win.
The ASA has upheld the complaint on this occasion. The ASA understood that employees of Royalux, employees of agents or suppliers of the Promoter who were professionally connected with the competition or its administration, and members of their immediate families and households were prohibited from entering the draw. The ASA also understood that the terms and conditions were retrospectively changed (after the promotion ended and a winner was selected) to remove the exclusion of immediate family members from the terms and conditions to allow the winner to retain the prize. The ASA considered that this was not a fair or honourable way to treat participants and concluded that the promotion had not been administered fairly and breached the CAP Code.
You can view the full ruling here: