The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has continued to lock horns with the regulated gambling sector, reprimanding William Hill for the second time in as many months, this time over a misleading promotion.
William Hill Online was informed by the ASA that one of its adverts earlier this year involving marble racing breached the advertising code for being misleading.
The operator stated that the advert with incorrect terms and conditions for a promotion appeared due to a “typographical error” and that it has reviewed its processes to make sure the same mistake isn’t repeated.
However, the ASA has told William Hill that it must make sure any claims made about future offers don’t contradict the terms and conditions applied to them.
The latest ruling from the ASA follows accusations from Flutter Entertainment that the authority was defying common sense as pressure intensified from anti-gambling campaigners.
After the ASA took action against a Flutter advert involving Gary Neville, the operator questioned the effectiveness of the authority taking such a hardline against the regulated industry whilst “black-market operators flood the internet and social media unchecked”.
Marble racing
The William Hill ad in question appeared on the operator’s app on 17 May 2025 and offered a promotion for a ‘Marble Race Live’ game. Text within the advert said “Enjoy £40 on us! When you opt in and stake £20” with small text underneath stating the terms and conditions, including the text “Min.£40 stake on Marble Race Live”.
A complaint was received by the ASA, which challenged whether the “Enjoy £40 on us! When you opt in and stake £20” statement was misleading since a minimum stake of £40 was actually required.
This is the second time in as many months that William Hill has been reprimanded by the ASA, as the operator was at fault for a promotional voucher that was deemed to possibly encourage irresponsible play in September.
Typographical error
William Hill responded to the ASA’s more recent complaint by noting that the main text on one banner on its app showed the incorrect wording, with the small print underneath stating that advert, “Min. £40 stake on Marble Race Live”, being the correct requirement.
The incorrect advert appeared on the mobile app and web banner “due to a manual edit made during resizing for layout purposes,” and although the correct template was used for the campaign, a “typographical error” resulted in the staking requirement being mistakenly changed from £40 to £20.
According to the operator, only one ad was affected, it was live between 17 May to 19 May and shown exclusively in the mobile app to a targeted group of up to 3,057 customers, “reducing the likelihood of widespread exposure”.
In addition, William Hill said that those customers who clicked through on the banner “were still presented with the full and accurate terms and conditions before opting in”. As a result of this evidence, they believed that the “likelihood of consumer detriment was low”, but processes have since been reviewed to make sure the error isn’t repeated.
Misleading
Yet, the ASA has upheld the complaint since the main text “Enjoy £40 on us! When you opt in and stake £20” can be interpreted by customers that a minimum stake of £20 was sufficient to qualify for the promotion, despite the small text underneath stating otherwise.
Due to this, the authority stated that the advert breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.9 (Qualification) for being misleading, as the main text “did not reflect the actual terms and conditions of the promotion”.
The ASA said: “We acknowledged that the small print referred to the correct staking value necessary to participate in the promotion. However, we considered that, by introducing a higher staking requirement as a qualifying condition, the qualification contradicted rather than clarified the headline claim.
“Because the ad suggested that a stake over £20 was eligible for the offer, when that was not the case, we concluded that the ad was misleading.”
William Hill has been told by the ASA that the advert must not appear again in this form and that the operator must make sure any claims made about future offers don’t contradict the terms and conditions applied to them.
