This Wisdom of the Crowd (ACC member discussion) addresses legal issues surrounding the promotion of an alternative method of entries in customer survey sweepstakes. This resource was compiled from questions and responses posted on the forum of the IT, Privacy & eCommerce ACC Network.*
*(Permission was received from the ACC members quoted below prior to publishing their eGroup comments in this Wisdom of the Crowd resource.)
Question:
Let's say I make a purchase at my local grocery store. On the receipt is a URL where I can go to complete a satisfaction survey and, upon doing so, will be entered into a drawing for a prize.
The official rules of the sweepstakes, which are published at the URL, provide for a free method of entry that doesn't require a purchase from the store. But, in practice, potential entrants only get the URL once they've made a purchase. So, is the grocery store obligated to notify individuals of the alternate method of entry BEFORE they make the purchase? I believe it is not necessary, as long as an alternate method of entry technically exists and the store doesn't promote the sweepstakes in a way that it becomes the very reason why people come to the store in the first place.
Thoughts?
Wisdom of the Crowd:
- Response # 1: How does one answer a survey about how satisfied one was with one's purchasing experience if one didn't make a purchase? Even if I had the URL would it allow me to enter if I can't answer the questions (at least without lying)? Does that mean there really is no AMOE? That said, I've never seen any law respecting how hard the sweepstakes operator must work to publicize the AMOE's existence. I'd be interested to hear if others know of some rules.i
- Response # 2: Yes, an AMOE has to be publicized with equal prominence to a paid method of entry. There is guidance from a number of areas requiring a sweepstakes operator to publicize the AMOE's existence and details with "equal dignity" e.g., equal prominence to the paid method of entry. There are a couple of 2004 settlements from New York arising from a promotion by the makers of Tylenol and another by CVS that set out the requirements for retail AMOE promotions, but generally are followed by non-retail marketers as well.
- The AMOE may be old 3x5 mailed postcard method of entry, e.g., it doesn't have to be entry at the URL and doesn't have to require completion of the survey questions. But, from a practical perspective, if there's a 3rd party agency administering the sweeps for the retailer, it's difficult for marketing agencies to abide by the law in another area related to AMOEs - give equal likelihood of winning to an AMOE entrant vs. paid entrants - if there are 2 disparate entry collection systems.ii
- Response # 3: Lottery laws and regulations can vary from state to state, and your client may be a member of a state and/or federal retail association that maintains a survey of these laws and regulations. Also, I would think that lottery laws might be addressed in another subject-matter area such as advertising/marketing law.
- I don't recall enough of the "standard rules" to have an opinion one way or another. I just recall that the lottery laws can be somewhat particular and so it's better to do the research and have some certainty for compliance.iii
- Response # 4: While I am not sure whether the grocery store is obligated to do so under your fact pattern, my question to you is why aren't they anyway? I mean, rather than waste time and money to ensure that they are barely compliant, why not post a small sign at the check-out register or the door to the exit of the building and be done with it. This would be my recommendation because it is a cheap solution that provides additional coverage and lessens the amount of legal work that would need to go into sweepstakes compliance law. Usually most clients would be happy with the cheaper, safer route.iv