Sports betting app Kwiff has been reprimanded by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), after odds used in a television advertisement were found to be fake.
The ad in question, seen in December of last year, contained an example bet placed by “Adam from Clitheroe” on a PSG vs Celtic game, and stated “Adam’s odds on PSG were perfectly normal 11/8”.
Four complaints challenged the odds misleading nature due to a belief the odds were never available, with Eaton Gate Gaming, Kwiff’s parent company, stating that the ad featured a simplified version of the bet “PSG to win & only one or no team scores”.
Stating that £5 was placed on that bet on September 12 with odds of 11/8, they also said that the ad would not be used again, and one with a revised bet had been submitted to Clearcast.
Responding themselves Clearcast, the non-governmental organisation which pre-approves most British television advertising, commented that they had not been made aware that the bet in the ad was not genuine before clearing it.
The ASA judged that consumers would understand the claim to mean that those odds were attainable, and an example of the type of odds that were achievable through using Kwiff’s service.
Adding: “We noted that the bet on which those odds had been available was ‘PSG to win & only one or no team scores.’
“Because we considered that consumers would understand the claim in the ad to mean that the odds were based on PSG to win without the additional qualification, but that bet was not available at the odds quoted in the ad, we concluded that the ad was misleading”
Ruling, the ASA stated that the ad must not appear again in current form, in addition to telling Kwiff to ensure that they accurately described any example bets displayed in their ads, and displayed the correct odds for that bet.
In addition OddsMonkey, the matched betting service, also came under question, relating to a page titled “Ben’s Matched Betting Diary” featured on its site, which claimed to hit a £20 profit target each day.
The complainant, who believed it featured a fictional character, challenged whether the impression that similar profits were achievable in real life was misleading and could be substantiated.
Responding OddsMonkey, who stated the author was an employee, supplied daily entries for August and September, figures used to calculate the claim and profits or losses achieved so far by 1,571 members who used OddsMonkey’s profit tracker tool.
As well as this it was pointed out that earning potential could vary over time and the author having 18 months experience, with a belief stated that: “Ben’s Matched Betting Diary was a fair representation of the earnings that could be expected from using the OddsMonkey software and working through the training guides and daily offers.”
In its assessment, the ASA stated that consumers would likely believe the dairy contained a fair representation of success that could be achieved, before issuing an understanding of the process of matched betting, free bets, their requirements and potential impacts of such.
Regarding evidence supplied, the ASA commented: “OddsMonkey had not supplied adequate evidence to show that the level of success described in the blog was typical of the success customers were likely to be able to achieve when using OddsMonkey’s service over at least a similar time period, we concluded that the claim made in the ad had not been substantiated.”
Before ruling “The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told OddsMonkey not to make claims about the level of profits members were likely to be able to achieve, and for how long that would be sustained, unless they held adequate substantiation.”