UK watchdog raps William Hill over “irresponsible” betting shop promotion

A voucher awarded customers a limited-time cash match on slots.

UK.- The Advertising Standards Authority has upheld a complaint against a promotional offer run by Evoke’s William Hill. A player had complained about a promotional voucher received from a slot machine at a William Hill betting shop on April 3 2025.

The offending voucher stated “You’ve won a £5 cash match on any game!” and “Redeemable between 03/04/2025 – 03/04/2025 from 05:20 PM – 11:59 PM in any venue”. The complainant suggested that the tight timeframe between when the voucher was issued and when it was redeemable encouraged irresponsible gaming in breach of advertising regulations.

William Hill said it did not believe the promotion breached the CAP Code or encouraged behaviour that was socially undesirable or irresponsible. It said the voucher was issued to customers who staked £50 or more on an eligible gaming machine prior to 5.20pm,, including both the customer’s original cash-in and any winnings subsequently played again. It provided evidence demonstrating that the average cash-in in relation to the three-day promotion was below the average spend for April and May 2025.

As such, it said it did not believe that the amount needed to spend in order to qualify for the promotion was substantial, nor that the promotion encouraged excessive staking. It argued that the promotion was a low-value, one-off reward and did not involve any progressive elements, wagering multipliers, or additional conditions. The operator stressed that it was not part of a broader incentive structure nor designed to drive repeated play. 

Meanwhile, it said the terms of the promotion were communicated to customers clearly and fully, and key qualifying conditions were displayed on digital promotional screens in the shop, with the voucher reiterating those conditions. It also stressed that redemption of the voucher was optional and that there was no requirement for the customer to remain on premises after qualification, or to return later in the day

While it acknowledged that the redemption window began at a specific time later on the same day, it said the promotion did not encourage participants to remain on the premises and it did not create any time-sensitive pressure to continue playing. It also provided a percentage breakdown of the time period between when the voucher was issued and redeemed and noted that few customers redeemed the voucher within two hours. The majority of customers waited at least three hours. 

However, the ASA took the view that the redemption window was too tight and that the promotion breached CAP Code rule 8.5 (Protection of consumers, safety and suitability). The watchdog has ruled that the promotion must not be run again in the same form.

It said: “we considered that, because the redemption window was limited to a later time on the day it was printed, it meant that most participants could only benefit if they returned to the premises or stayed until the later start time. In addition, we noted that was reflected in the percentage breakdown of the time period between the voucher being issued and redeemed. 

“We also considered that those who were eligible for the voucher may have already placed several bets earlier that day, as the voucher was issued once an individual’s total stake reached £50, which could include repeated play of winnings. We therefore considered that the timeframe between when the voucher was issued and when it was redeemable created an incentive for repeated play within a short period, including visiting the betting shop twice in a single day, increasing the risk of consumers gambling more than they otherwise would.

“We thus considered that linking the reward to a same-day timeframe, particularly at a limited period later on the day, incentivised behaviours that could encourage irresponsible use. For those reasons, we concluded that the promotion encouraged irresponsible use and breached the Code.”

Decision against KamaGames

Earlier this month, the ASA found fault with a social media ad by KamaGames. It found the ad’s claim that a blackjack game Blackjackist featured “no purchases” was “misleading”.

Published on X and seen on April 2, the advert read: “No annoying notifications. No purchases. Just. Good. Old. Blackjack”. However, an academic researcher in game regulation lodged a complaint arguing that the game did contain in-game purchases, including random-item purchasing.

See also:

See also: UK ads watchdog finds fault with “misleading” KamaGames blackjack advert