A free-to-enter giveaway can look simple from the outside. People enter, the promotion closes, and a winner is picked.
The difficult part can come later, when an entrant, client, or regulator asks how the result was reached. At that point, saying that a random tool was used may not be enough. You may also need to show who was included, which rules applied, whether every valid bonus entry was counted, and what evidence was saved.
Previous Advertising Standards Authority rulings provide useful examples of what can go wrong.
What does the CAP Code say about random prize draws?
The CAP Code says that prize draw winners should be selected in accordance with the laws of chance. Unless a computer process produces verifiably random results, the selection should be carried out by an independent person or under the supervision of an independent person.
Current CAP guidance also makes an important point: simply stating that a random process was used without providing evidence may not be enough.
For an agency, that means the record behind the winner can be just as important as the winner’s name.
A manual selection may be difficult to defend
In a 2021 ruling involving Get The Gloss, a member of staff selected a potential winner by scrolling through Instagram comments without looking and choosing the comment where their finger landed.
The ASA concluded that this was not a computer process producing verifiably random results. The person making the selection was also a member of staff rather than an independent person or somebody acting under independent supervision.
The ruling was upheld.
The practical lesson is straightforward. A process can feel random to the person carrying it out without producing enough evidence to demonstrate that it was random.
A random tool does not fix an incomplete entry list
Another ruling involved a PrettyLittleThing Instagram giveaway. The promoter said it had used a third-party website to download information and select a winner at random.
However, some of the entry conditions could not be independently checked from the information available. Entrants could also receive a bonus entry by sharing the promotion to their Instagram Story, but the promoter could not reliably identify every person who had completed that step, particularly where private accounts were involved.
The ASA concluded that people who completed the bonus-entry requirement would not necessarily receive the additional chance they had been promised. The promotion was therefore not considered to have been administered fairly.
A similar issue appeared in a 2025 ruling involving an Instagram giveaway run by Meggan Kirkland. A random selection tool had been used, but private Story shares could not all be identified and included. The ASA again concluded that the bonus-entry process had not been administered fairly.
These rulings show why the final list matters. The random selection can only work with the entries it is given. If valid entries are missing, or promised bonus entries have not been added, a random result does not correct the problem.
A verifiably random result is only one part of the process
The ASA’s ruling on a Molly Maison giveaway provides a useful distinction.
The promoter used online software to select a potential winner from Instagram data. On the question of whether the result was selected in accordance with the laws of chance, the ASA accepted that the process had produced verifiably random results.
However, a separate part of the complaint was upheld because the promotion offered bonus entries for Instagram Story shares that could not always be identified where private accounts were involved.
This shows that a verifiable random draw does not replace the rest of the giveaway administration. The rules, entry collection, eligibility checks, final list, and selection method must work together.
Keep evidence that a valid award took place
The record should not end when the winner is selected.
In a 2024 ruling involving Nasty Gal, the promoter said it had replied to the winning Instagram comment. The ASA considered that this was not a sufficiently clear way for entrants to see that a valid award had taken place, particularly because the original post had thousands of comments.
The promotion was found to have breached the Code because clear information confirming that a winner had been selected had not been published or otherwise made available.
A clear winner record, certificate, or suitable verification page can help show that the draw took place without publishing the full entry list or private contact information.
What should an agency keep?
A useful giveaway record normally includes:
- the giveaway details and prize;
- the rules that were available to entrants;
- the original entry export;
- notes about duplicates and removed entries;
- the exact final list used for the draw;
- the final number of eligible entries;
- the selection method and settings;
- the date and time of the draw;
- the winner and any reserve winners;
- evidence supporting the random result; and
- suitable information showing that a valid award took place.
Keeping these items together makes it easier to answer questions with a clear record instead of trying to rebuild the process from screenshots, emails, and memory.
The practical lesson
The ASA rulings do not suggest that every giveaway needs to be complicated.
They show that each part of the process needs to match. The entry conditions should be capable of being checked. Every valid entry should be included. The final list should be saved before the draw. The winner-selection method should produce evidence that can be examined afterwards. The result should then be recorded and made available in a suitable way.
A winner picker gives you a result. A complete giveaway record helps you explain it.
One important limit
Keeping a verifiable draw record does not automatically make a promotion legally compliant.
The promoter remains responsible for the giveaway, its advertising, entry conditions, eligibility decisions, winner contact, and prize delivery. Appropriate advice should be obtained where a campaign needs it.
About this guidance
PromoProof publishes practical operational guidance for agency-run, free-to-enter giveaways. It is not legal advice, and promoters remain responsible for their campaigns.
Last reviewed 27 July 2026.
Put it into practice
Keep the final entry list, winner selection, and evidence in one giveaway record.
PromoProof helps agency teams save the important information behind a free-to-enter promotional giveaway.