ASA sides with Marathonbet over 0% margin Facebook ads

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has ruled in favour of Marathonbet after a complaint was made against the operator’s 0% margin claim across two Facebook adverts. A Facebook post and paid-for Facebook ad published on 12 August 2020 and 11 October 2020 respectively both showcased Marathonbet’s 0% margin claim on certain pre-match markets. One complainant, who understood that small margins may still apply, challenged whether the 0% margin claims were misleading. In response, Marathonbet said its 0% margin claims were qualified with additional text that explained the margin applied only to certain pre-match markets and that the exact margin would fluctuate at around 0%. The operator argued that odds were offered in simple fractions, and when all outcomes of a single match were put together they would not necessarily add up to a whole number when decimalised. However, Marathonbet said the odds offered were as close to 0% as was practical for a market where there were many different potential outcomes and moving price points. To demonstrate how margins fluctuated, Marathonbet supplied the odds time-stamped over several days for one Champions League match on 15 August to the ASA. For bets on the full-time result, the margins fluctuated between 0.0011% and 0.0052%. Taking the maximum of 0.0052% meant that if a customer staked £200 on home win, draw and away win to proportionate stake levels they would be guaranteed a return of £199.99 rather than £200, the ASA said. The regulator considered that although some consumers with experience in betting would understand the claim 0% margin, consumers would more generally understand that they were likely to receive more favourable odds by choosing an option that gave them a 0% margin. The ASA also argued that odds expressed in decimals to three or more decimal points would likely cause more confusion for consumers. After consulting with the UK Gambling Commission, the ASA concluded the ads were not misleading and that no further action was required. The regulator wrote: “We acknowledged that it might be useful for some consumers to know the bookmaker’s margin in order to work out the best possible chance of profiting from their bets by obtaining the best odds. “However, we considered that in practice, consumers were not likely to be materially misled by the difference between a 0% margin and a 0.0052% margin. “Because we considered that consumers would not be materially misled by the fluctuating margins, we considered that the claims were sufficient to qualify the headline claim of 0%.”