That the National Postcode Lottery is often searching the limits of how far it can go in its advertising, is hardly surprising anymore. We all know the examples of seemingly good credit cards being send to "the residents of this house". Often it seems like you've already won and you only need to sign yourself up in order to receive your prize. Also with the Golden Coin Action. In this action the NPL ensured each participant a fantastic welcome gift: a wallet stuffed with € 2500! At the top of the letter it said: "what gift do you get?” along with a number of awards and associated codes.The only thing the contestant had to do was scratching open a square on the scratch & win card and check if the number combination yielded a price. And it did. Because that was the case for áll participants.
That was part of the marketing of the NPL. Obviously many people participated with the thought of earning easy money. The NPL, however, said the sentence "What gift do you get?” only meant that the participants had an ‘opportunity’ to win a price. The participant would obviously not think that they immediately got a price, because that would mean everybody would get a price and certainly no one believes that?
Together with some participants the judge thought otherwise. The participants did not know they only had a ‘chance’ at winning. The judge said that the letter was an offer from the NPL to it’s participants containing a welcome gift. Is it peculiar that you would expect a price from a lottery? According to the court, the NPL has a responsibility as a professional party, to communicate in a clear manner to it’s participants. This does not include: communicate on the front that you will win a price and when you flip over to the back, you are only to find out that it’s a bust.
The consumers trust could be based on the frontside. The judge said that if the NPL was an unreliable party, consumers wouldn’t have to value the promises in the commercials of the NPL and that they didn’t have to presume this was a real offer. It is understandable why the NPL would not take that position. And now? The NPL must pay a high price, €2500 to each participant!
Daan van Eek, advertising law attorney
|
office Emerald House Jozef Israëlskade 48-G Amsterdam, the Netherlands t +31 (0)20 - 305 3066 www.hoogenhaak.nl |
post PO Box 76780 1070 KB Amsterdam e info@hoogenhaak.nl f +31 (0)20 - 305 3069 chamber of commerce 34314579 |
That the National Postcode Lottery is often searching the limits of how far it can go in its advertising, is hardly surprising anymore. We all know the examples of seemingly good credit cards being send to "the residents of this house". Often it seems like you've already won and you only need to sign yourself up in order to receive your prize. Also with the Golden Coin Action. In this action the NPL ensured each participant a fantastic welcome gift: a wallet stuffed with € 2500! At the top of the letter it said: "what gift do you get?” along with a number of awards and associated codes.The only thing the contestant had to do was scratching open a square on the scratch & win card and check if the number combination yielded a price. And it did. Because that was the case for áll participants.
That was part of the marketing of the NPL. Obviously many people participated with the thought of earning easy money. The NPL, however, said the sentence "What gift do you get?” only meant that the participants had an ‘opportunity’ to win a price. The participant would obviously not think that they immediately got a price, because that would mean everybody would get a price and certainly no one believes that?
Together with some participants the judge thought otherwise. The participants did not know they only had a ‘chance’ at winning. The judge said that the letter was an offer from the NPL to it’s participants containing a welcome gift. Is it peculiar that you would expect a price from a lottery? According to the court, the NPL has a responsibility as a professional party, to communicate in a clear manner to it’s participants. This does not include: communicate on the front that you will win a price and when you flip over to the back, you are only to find out that it’s a bust.
The consumers trust could be based on the frontside. The judge said that if the NPL was an unreliable party, consumers wouldn’t have to value the promises in the commercials of the NPL and that they didn’t have to presume this was a real offer. It is understandable why the NPL would not take that position. And now? The NPL must pay a high price, €2500 to each participant!
Daan van Eek, advertising law attorney