William Hill sanctioned by the ASA for risky promotion
•
26 Sep 2025 •
Reading time: 2 minutes In the United Kingdom, a simple promotional voucher was enough to put William Hill in the regulators’ crosshairs. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruled that a voucher offering £5 worth of gambling exerted undue pressure on players by imposing too short a time limit to take advantage of it.
A seemingly harmless voucher, a strong reaction
It was a small, tempting offer (a voucher offering a £5 bonus on any game) that triggered a regulatory storm. In the United Kingdom, the ASA recently upheld a complaint against William Hill, ruling that the promotion violated the principles of responsible gambling advertising.
This promotion was active in William Hill’s land-based establishments: visitors who received this voucher had to wager at least £50 between 5:20 p.m. and midnight on the same day in order to take advantage of it. This very tight timeframe was deemed particularly problematic by the British regulatory body.
Timeline
It all began in early April, when customers received this voucher. The voucher offered a £5 bonus for every game, but imposed strict conditions on time and stake (minimum £50). One customer lodged a complaint with the ASA, arguing that the promotion exerted excessive pressure by condensing the playing window.
On 24 September, the ASA issued its decision. It rejected William Hill’s defence that the offer was of ‘limited value’, that it was optional, and that staff had been trained to detect problematic behaviour. On the contrary, the authority ruled that the very short time frame directly encouraged the immediate withdrawal of funds or an immediate return to the betting point, a dynamic contrary to the rules of ethical marketing for gambling. As a result, the promotion in this form could no longer be offered.
Consequences for William Hill and the industry
This decision sends a strong warning to gambling operators: promotions must now be designed in such a way that they do not induce excessive pressure or encourage hasty gambling. William Hill will have to withdraw or modify this type of voucher in order to remain compliant.
Beyond that, it sends a message: the British authorities intend to take proactive measures to limit overly aggressive incentives. Other players in the sector who use strong promotional offers could also be monitored or sanctioned.This case serves as a reminder that the line between marketing and pathological incentives is a fine one in the world of gambling. The ASA’s ruling maintains that the potential intention to encourage gambling at any cost is punishable.