Royalux Competitions, a pay to enter prize draw site, has had a ruling against them upheld by Advertising Standards (ASA). During August 2024 they ran a prize draw offering the chance to win a £5000 garden makeover and a further £2000 cash. The draw took place on the 11th August and the main prize was won by Dave McDonald. However the winner turned out to be the brother of the makeover supplier! One person contacted ASA and complained that they “believed the prize had not been awarded in accordance with the terms and conditions because it was won by an immediate family member of the garden makeover supplier”. They challenged whether the promotion had been administered fairly. According to the terms the competition wasn’t open to “(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”.
“Reserved The Right To Amend The Rules”
In response to the complaint, Royalux Competitions said that “the winner of the draw was made by a randomised number generator live on Facebook”. They provided a screenshot of the draw which revealed the identity of the winner. Despite the winner being related to the garden makeover company Royalux felt that this didn’t prohibit them either entering the draw or winning it. They argued that the prohibition terms didn’t include “third-party suppliers” but that they also “reserved the right to amend their terms and conditions as and when required and that their decision was final and no correspondence or discussion”. Royalux explained that they felt they could change their terms and conditions as they pleased and that they “believed the draw had been administered fairly, in line with their terms and conditions, and confirmed that they had not received any complaints directly”. They also explained to ASA that they’d purchased the £5000 makeover prize and as they now “owned” the prize that they were free to give it away as they pleased.
“Justifiable Grounds For Complaint”
ASA opted to uphold the complaint. They “considered that exclusion would prevent a brother of the provider of the prize from taking part. We further understood that, after the promotion ended and a winner was selected (who was the brother of the prize provider), Royalux retrospectively changed the terms and conditions of the promotion such that the exclusion of immediate family members of the prize provider was removed, therefore allowing him to retain the prize”. They also “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”. In conclusion of the complaint ASA advised Royalux Competitions “not to administer their promotions unfairly, cause unnecessary disappointment or give consumers grounds for complaint in future”. It’s a standard rap across the knuckles for a breach of the CAP code.
“A Little Bad Publicity”
A number of media outlets have reported on the ASA ruling (The Daily Mail, The Times, The Courier). In response to this and ASA’s ruling Royalux Competitions have posted on their Facebook page. They explain that they had no idea the supplier’s brother had entered and that they didn’t hide the fact when the prize was won. The winner was chosen live on Facebook using a random number generator. Many competition sites archive their lives for reference but we couldn’t find a recording of the draw online. According to Royalux “there was actually a lot of laughter on the live draw as the winner had been asking his brother to help him with his garden for years!”. For transparency, Royalux Competitions have shared screenshots of the winning number, payments by the winner when they purchased tickets, payments of the cash prize to the winner, payment for the garden makeover prize to the supplier and images of the makeover. The owner of Royalux Competitions states that they live by their decision and that the “ruling is actually going through an independent review as we stand by the evidence that this competition was drawn fairly, with Google random generator & live on Facebook”. They also said they can live with a “little bad publicity”. Naturally supporters of the site are unimpressed with ASA’s ruling although we think some are missing the point. ASA aren’t suggesting that the prize draw wasn’t drawn unfairly but instead are unhappy that the terms and conditions were restrospectively changed to accommodate the winner.
Changing Terms & Conditions
The key element of this ruling, in our view, is that the terms stated “members of the immediate families or households” were excluded and this includes “agents or suppliers” involved in the promotion. Royalux Competitions may be happy with their actions as may their followers but the purpose of terms is to protect entrants and competition organisers. The terms and conditions of a prize draw or competition should be clear and fixed for the duration of a promotion. If the terms state for example that entries from people called Bob are excluded and then the winner is drawn as Bob then Bob can’t win. The prize has to be redrawn even if you feel bad for Bob. You can’t change the rules retrospectively otherwise there’s no point having terms. Additionally we’ve seen many times in the past where a prize has been awarded to someone involved with the promoter and it sours the mechanic and erodes trust in the brand as well as prize draws and competitions. In our view pay to enter sites need to be nothing short of transparent and trustworthy so any question marks on their actions not only effects one brand but the whole industry. We’re not suggesting Royalux aren’t untrustworthy by the way – they seem to be incredibly open about the whole process! However this ruling does highlight a bigger issue. There are so many of pay to enter prize draw sites running and seemingly many are unaware of ASA, The CAP code and their responsibility to uphold it. Whilst Royalux may consider this a “little bad publicity” for them, it’s these kind of stories in the media which tarnish the emerging competitions industry. Hopefully lessons can be learnt by all to help to further improve things for entrants and platforms.