View recent press releases, speeches, and news items published by month.
11/11 2 February 2011
The OFT today welcomed a landmark High Court ruling that promotions distributed by the companies and individuals behind five UK prize draw promotions are in breach of the law.
Following the ruling in the first substantive case before the High Court under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs), the Court has indicated that it will make enforcement orders against Purely Creative Limited, Strike Lucky Games Limited, McIntyre & Dodd Marketing Limited, The Winners Club Limited, Dodd Marketing Limited and certain of their directors.
In his judgment today, Mr Justice Briggs said that this is 'clearly a case in which an enforcement order should be made'. He also held that, 'the infringements of the Regulations … have occurred on a large scale …and within a short period of time. Very large numbers of consumers have been affected by those promotion... There has been a wholesale engagement in conduct altogether prohibited and, save in certain very limited respects, the aggregate effect of the misleading acts or omissions which I have found to be proved has been such as to satisfy the relatively stringent test for causation laid down by the Regulations.'
The businesses promote various premium-rate prize draw scratch-cards which are distributed through inserts in magazines and newspapers, as well as direct mailings.
Ways in which the promotions were held by the court to be in breach of the CPRs included the following:
As part of its recent Advertising of Prices Market Study, the OFT completed a detailed study the behavioural biases of consumers. This found that material which conceals or downplays the overall price a consumer may need to pay for something* can affect their willingness to pay.
Jason Freeman, Legal Director of the OFT's Consumer Group, said:
'This judgment has helped to clarify how the law applies to prize promotions, and vindicates our position that it is not acceptable to tell consumers they have won a prize, when in fact they are simply being given the chance to buy it.
'The companies' business model depended on consumers not being aware of the full facts, and as a result spending significant sums on premium phone services and delivery charges. The Defendants profited from misleading people, and this judgment means they will have to change their conduct considerably.
'This case reinforces how important it is that traders do not take advantage of how consumers respond to advertising by misleading them.'
* For example anchoring and adjustment, where people focus on an initial reference point (such as the description of a product as a 'prize'), and then fail to make sufficient adjustments when the overall price increases (such through premium rate costs and costs of delivery). A further bias is loss aversion and endowment effect, whereby the person places a higher value on an object that they own, or imagine they own (such as where they have been informed it is a prize they are entitled to), and therefore are willing to pay more not to lose it.
NOTES
Back to: Press releases
08457 22 44 99
Frank Shepherd
020 7211 8133
frank.shepherd@
oft.gsi.gov.uk
Pritie Billimoria
020 7211 8708
pritie.billimoria@
oft.gsi.gov.uk
Russell Guthrie
020 7211 8899
russell.guthrie@
oft.gsi.gov.uk
Elliott Ball
020 7211 8898
elliott.ball@
oft.gsi.gov.uk
out of hours mobile
(media only)
077 7413 4814
This feature requires Javascript and Cookies to be enabled on your browser
Register for email alerts or amend your existing account details here.