Channel 4 fined £1.5m over unfair competitions
A £1.5m (€2m) fine was slapped on Channel 4 today over the running of premium rate competitions on Richard And Judy and Deal Or No Deal.
Nearly three million phone calls, at around £1 (€1.40) a time, were made to the 'You Say We Pay' quiz on Richard and Judy after finalists had already been chosen.
In 'Deal Or No Deal', presented by Noel Edmonds, Channel 4 allowed a competition to continue for seven weeks after discovering its selection process, which disadvantaged later entrants, was unfair.
The phone-ins on both hit shows raised over £27m (€37m) while there were problems with the way winners were being selected.
In 'Deal Or No Deal', around £15m (€21m) was raised while the competition was run unfairly without Channel 4’s knowledge between August 2006 to March this year.
During the period that the broadcaster knew viewers were not being treated equally the competition raised a further £2.1m (€3m).
Gross revenue from 'You Say We Pay' between 2001 and 2007 was over £10m (€14m).
Channel 4 has been instructed to broadcast a summary of Ofcom’s findings on three separate occasions.
The fine comprises £1m (€1.4m) for 'You Say We Pay' and £500,000 (€691,000) for 'Deal Or No Deal'.
Both quizzes, which used premium rate numbers, are no longer on air after the broadcaster decided to shut all premium rate competitions.
Channel 4 said it would like to “apologise once again” to viewers.
It announced it was starting legal proceedings to recover costs from Eckoh, the service provider for 'You Say We Pay'.
Collectively, today’s fine is the second largest imposed by Ofcom following the £2m (€2.8m) sanction against GMTV.
Telephone lines to the Richard And Judy teatime quiz officially closed just after 5.35pm.
But from September 2004, a shortlist of finalists was drawn up at around 5.20pm while the telephone lines were still open and the programme was still soliciting viewers to enter the competition.
Ofcom said: “This practice meant that those viewers who called to enter the competitions on the basis that they had a fair and equal chance of winning, in fact had no chance of becoming a finalist after early selection had taken place.”
Ofcom also ruled that those who called to enter the competition later in the programme had a lesser chance of being selected.
Channel 4 said it had not realised its staggered selection process, which began with the first series in 2001, was unfair.
Ofcom concluded: “The committee accepted that Channel 4 had no intention to mislead its audience.
“However, the committee nonetheless took the view that the breaches constituted a substantial breakdown in the fundamental relationship of trust between a public service broadcaster and its viewers.”
It said: “Millions of viewers purchased the right to enter these competitions and invested trust in the licensee (Channel 4).
“This trust was ultimately misplaced. This case involved the widespread and systematic deception of all those viewers who paid to enter in the belief that they had a fair chance of winning when in fact their chances of winning were diminished or non-existent.
“Despite the considerable importance of the programme and the competitions to Channel 4, it failed to have any proper regard for the necessity to operate any effective form of compliance procedures for the operation of the competition.
“It failed to adequately manage or oversee fundamental elements of the conduct or the competition (winner selection procedures).”
Of 'Deal Or No Deal', Ofcom said Channel 4’s decision to continue running the competition while it knew it was unfair was “totally unacceptable”.
Its failure to take “even the most basic independent steps” to ensure it was being run fairly “was negligent”, it said.
Channel 4 Group finance director Anne Bulford said: “Channel 4 is no longer running any premium rate competitions and so we believe today’s ruling brings this particular chapter to a close.
“We would like to apologise once again to those affected and to assure all our viewers that Channel 4 is committed to applying the lessons learned across all its activities and to doing everything in its power to regain and maintain their trust.”
It said it was taking legal action against Eckoh because “it knew that the competition was being run in a non-compliant fashion but it took no steps to rectify the problems it had identified or to bring them to Channel 4’s attention”.
A spokesman for Eckoh said: “We have not been contacted by Channel 4, directly or indirectly, and believe strongly that there is no basis for any legal action against us.
“If Channel 4 wishes to proceed with a legal action, then we will robustly defend our position.”
