Big bug at Kruidvat: scratchcard sold instead of offered
•
5 Sep 2025 •
Reading time: 2 minutes Imagine: a customer walks into a Kruidvat store, buys three Kruidvat products, and leaves with a free scratchcard worth €1. At first sight, a nice idea to build customer loyalty. But in Belgium, such an offer has attracted the attention of the Jury voor Ethische Praktijken inzake Reclame/Jury d’Éthique Publicitaire (JEP).
On 1 September 2025, the JEP published its verdict: no serious offence had been committed. However, Kruidvat was reprimanded for unintentionally offering the scratchcard for direct sale on its website. This error was immediately rectified, and the offer was withdrawn online.
Who is the JEP?
The JEP is a regulatory authority specialising in advertising practices in Belgium. It received a complaint claiming that the promotion of the scratch ticket could expose minors to gambling, or give the impression that they themselves could take part in a lottery.
After examining the complaint, the JEP rejected it. In particular, it noted that:
- the age restrictions were clearly indicated in the television advertising and on the website;
- warnings about responsible gambling were in fact present;
- and, above all, that Kruidvat had introduced an age control system at the cash register, as well as staff training on this subject.
Thus, the promotion did not constitute an incitement to gamble aimed at minors.
The erroneous offer: the wrong ticket online
Despite all this, JEP considered that Kruidvat had breached its duty of responsibility by mistakenly offering the scratch card for direct sale on its website, outside the intended promotional context. This could be perceived as an act contrary to the principles of responsible marketing.
The response was swift: as soon as the error came to light, Kruidvat immediately withdrew the online offer. This is a commendable move, demonstrating a willingness to correct any discrepancies as soon as they are identified.
A story of vigilance and responsibility
What can we learn from this case? Firstly, that a promotion designed to be fun and harmless can, through carelessness, give rise to compliance concerns. Kruidvat did not break the rules: the JEP confirmed this. But the error (offering for sale a ticket that was only intended to be given away free of charge) was deemed clumsy.
Kruidvat demonstrated good crisis management: immediate correction, transparency about the withdrawal, compliance with recommendations.