The ASA Has Raised the Bar for Prize Draw Winner Selection — Can Your Process Prove It Was Fair?

The Advertising Standards Authority and CAP have refreshed their guidance on prize winners, and one message stands out for every UK prize draw operator: saying a winner was chosen at random is not enough. Operators should be able to provide evidence that the selection was genuinely random — or show that an independent observer supervised the process.

For a sector worth an estimated £1.3 billion a year, that is more than a technical detail. It is a practical test of whether an operator can demonstrate fairness when a player, regulator or advertising body asks a simple question: how, exactly, was this winner selected?

“Random” is a claim that needs evidence

The ASA’s updated guidance, published on 17 June 2026, says promoters should select winners randomly or independently. Where a verifiably random computer process is used, the ASA expects evidence of that process. If a computer programme is not used, the draw should take place under the supervision of someone independent of the promotion.

That distinction matters. A screenshot of a spreadsheet, a staff member pressing a button, or an explanation written after the event may not give entrants confidence that the process was protected from error or interference. The issue is not whether an operator intended to be fair; it is whether the operator can demonstrate that fairness.

This sits naturally alongside the DCMS Voluntary Code of Good Practice for Prize Draw Operators. The Code’s focus on transparency and accountability recognises that players need more than attractive prizes and reassuring wording. They need clear, credible information about how a draw works and how its outcome is reached.

Manual selection creates avoidable doubt

Many operators run legitimate promotions but still leave themselves exposed by using informal winner-selection methods. Names may be copied into a spreadsheet, numbered manually, selected during a livestream, or drawn using a basic random-number tool without a durable record of what happened.

Even when the result is honest, the process can be difficult to audit later. Was every eligible ticket included? Were duplicate or cancelled entries removed consistently? Could anyone alter the list after the draw? Was the randomisation method suitable for the size and structure of the entry pool?

Those questions become especially important for high-value draws, where a winner may be selected from thousands or millions of tickets and public scrutiny is inevitable. A process that feels “good enough” internally can look surprisingly fragile when a disappointed entrant challenges it.

Independent, verifiable selection turns trust into evidence

This is where the UKCPSA Certified Ticket Selector can make a material difference. Rather than relying on a basic random-number generator or an opaque internal process, operators can use an independently designed, cryptographically secure selection tool for live competition draws.

The benefit is not simply that the system produces a random result. It is that the operator can build a stronger evidence trail around the draw: the eligible ticket pool, the selection process and the resulting winner can be recorded in a way that supports accountability after the event.

That is the standard operators should be aiming for as the market matures. The DCMS Code asks the sector to strengthen transparency and accountability. The ASA’s guidance shows how those principles can be tested in practice. A winner-selection process that can be explained, evidenced and independently scrutinised helps turn a promise of fairness into something players can trust.

A fair draw should still look fair afterwards

The strongest operators do not wait for a complaint before thinking about evidence. They design the draw process so that fairness is clear before, during and after the result is announced. That means defining eligibility, protecting the entry data, using a robust selection method and retaining records that can answer reasonable questions.

It also supports responsible communication with players. The DCMS Code encourages transparency, while advertising rules require promotions to be administered as described. Clear winner-selection procedures help operators meet both expectations without relying on vague assurances.

If your draw process would be difficult to explain to an entrant — or difficult to reproduce for an independent reviewer — it may be time to strengthen it. Learn more about our Certified Ticket Selector and give your next live draw the independent, cryptographically secure winner-selection process it deserves.