The encyclopedia · Advertising & PR · Marketing decision · 2021
PrettyLittleThing's Valentines giveaway banned — it couldn't verify who entered
PrettyLittleThing's Valentines giveaway promised prizes for tags and shares. The ASA banned it: the tracker couldn't verify who entered.
PrettyLittleThing · 2021-09
What happened
On 10 February 2021 PrettyLittleThing posted an Instagram Valentines giveaway: prizes included a Cartier Love Ring, a Dyson Airwrap, £5,000 cash, a £500 wardrobe and a beauty bundle. Entry required double-tapping and saving the post, tagging a friend, commenting 'done', sharing the post on stories, and following @prettylittlething — with 'enter as many times as you want' for extra chances.
A complainant challenged whether the promotion could be independently verified. PrettyLittleThing said an independent third party downloaded Instagram data and produced a verifiable random result, and that the winner was manually checked against screenshots showing they had completed the entry conditions.
On 1 September 2021 the ASA upheld the complaint. The programme could not verify that entrants had saved the post, hearted the brand's posts or shared to stories — especially from private accounts — so those conditions were not independently verifiable, and bonus entries for them could not increase anyone's chances. The promotion breached CAP rules 8.2, 8.14 and 8.24.
Why it happened
- A giveaway must be able to verify its own entry conditions — PLT's tracker couldn't see saves, hearts or story shares.
- Bonus entries for story shares couldn't change anyone's odds — the prize game wasn't the game described.
- Private accounts made the gap worse: the tracker was told to reward shares it could never see.
- One complainant was enough — the ASA doesn't need a crowd to find an unadministered promotion.
The lesson
A promotion must be able to verify its own entry conditions: PrettyLittleThing's giveaway promised bonus entries it could not track, so some entrants played for nothing.
Aftermath
The ASA told PrettyLittleThing to ensure significant conditions for participation were clear and that the promotion was administered so it could be verified.
Sources
spotted an error? The club wants to know.
More like this
Jaded London's holiday email glamorised smoking — the ASA banned it
Next's legging ad angled the camera low enough that the ASA called the model too thin
M&S said a model's pose was 'confidence' — the ASA read prominent collarbones instead
Somewhere, someone solved the problem this company failed at. 2nd Opinion →
Comments · 0
Sign in to join the comments.