header-logo header-logo

24 October 2012
Issue: 7535 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Misleading scratch cards unlawful

Prize-draw promoters have hands slapped by ECJ

Prize-draw promotions that mislead consumers into thinking they have won a valuable prize or encourage them to call premium-rate numbers may be unlawful, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled.

Last February, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) successfully sought a High Court injunction preventing several companies and individuals from promoting prize-draw scratch cards which it considered misleading, through magazines and newspapers or by direct mail. This was the first case to reach the courts under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (SI 2008/1277).

The regulations prohibit businesses from describing a product as “free” when it’s not or creating a false impression that the consumer will win a prize.

The OFT objected to several promotions involving individually addressed letters, scratch cards and advertising inserts placed into newspapers and magazines. All but one encouraged the consumer to call a premium rate number, and 99% of all winners won a prize worth just a few pounds.

The Court of Appeal asked the ECJ for guidance. The ECJ noted the psychological effect on consumers of being told they had won a prize, agreed with the OFT’s position, and set out guidance for trader behaviour.

Peter Stevens, partner at TWM Solicitors, says: “It will be interesting to see how such prize promotions change in the future. 

“Promoters will either have to be much more up front about the value of the prizes which are likely to be won and the costs involved in collecting them, or the promoters will have to absorb all such costs and, presumably, reduce the value of the prizes accordingly.”

Issue: 7535 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Sidley—Jeremy Trinder

Sidley—Jeremy Trinder

Global finance group strengthened by returning partner in London

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

NEWS
A seemingly dry procedural update may prove potent. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold explains that new CPR 31.12A—part of the 193rd update—fills a ‘lacuna’ exposed in McLaren Indy v Alpa Racing
The long-running Mazur saga edged towards its finale as the Court of Appeal heard arguments on whether non-solicitors can ‘conduct litigation’. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School reports from a packed courtroom where 16 wigs watched Nick Bacon KC argue that Mr Justice Sheldon had failed to distinguish between ‘tasks and responsibilities’

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
back-to-top-scroll