We told William Hill to ensure that terms and conditions were clearly worded and unambiguous, so that consumers would understand how the promotion worked and what amounts would be refunded. In the ruling the ASA said: "The ads must not appear again in the form complained of. In another case, a customer was refused a refund on the grounds they had not put up a big enough stake and money they "won" during a game and then subsequently lost was not counted as their own money.ĭespite William Hill claiming the promotions were self-explanatory, the ASA concluded that the wording of the terms was "unclear and contradictory". One customer complained to the Advertising Standards Authority that the ads were misleading, because the £5 refund was not made available unless further money was also staked.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |