Prepare a sweepstake rules-review brief

Begin with scope and responsibility

Identify the person or organisation proposing the activity and who would make decisions. State the jurisdiction, intended audience, physical location where relevant and any proposed remote involvement. Explain whether the plan involves contributions, paid entries, a free route, predictions or assessed skill. Describe where any benefit would go. Avoid vague phrases such as “everyone can join” when eligibility has not been reviewed.

Ask who has authority to approve the activity at the workplace, venue or organisation. Internal permission is different from legal permission, but both can matter operationally. If a charity is mentioned, distinguish a proposed beneficiary from a confirmed association. Do not use a charity logo or imply endorsement simply because someone hopes to donate a portion of the proceeds.

• Name the decision-maker in the private review brief.
• Keep identities out of the anonymous arithmetic worksheet.

Make timing and contingencies concrete

A draft needs proposed opening and closing times, time zone, any relevant event date and a clear sequence for review, communication and administration. Ask what would happen if the underlying event were postponed, abandoned or changed. Consider withdrawals, errors and complaints before they happen. Do not make promises about these outcomes until the relevant mechanism and applicable requirements have been reviewed.

For an entirely hypothetical budget, twelve equal £5 contributions total £60, and a 50/30/20 allocation produces £30, £18 and £12 if no costs are deducted. The figures explain a proposal; they do not settle whether money may be collected or how an outcome may be allocated. State that distinction in the review document rather than allowing a tidy table to imply approval.

Ask questions that match the proposed category

For a proposed work lottery, read the Commission guidance about one physical workplace, physical tickets, equal pricing, non-transferability, sales restrictions, draw location, proceeds and rollovers. An online registration form or remote draw is not made acceptable by calling it an office activity. Ask for review if the workforce spans locations or if the intended administration conflicts with those conditions.

For a proposed free draw, document each route from the participant’s perspective, including cost, convenience and prominence. For a proposed competition, identify the genuine skill, knowledge or judgement involved and the evidence relevant to the Commission’s threshold. Do not use the same generic checklist to pronounce all three formats acceptable. Classification comes before the final drafting of conditions.

Maintain a question log, not a compliance badge

A useful question log records the issue, the factual assumption, the person responsible for resolving it and the evidence or advice received. Mark unresolved matters clearly. Keep dated versions so an old draft is not accidentally promoted as final rules. Do not interpret a completed checkbox as independent verification, especially if the person checking it is also the organiser.

CAP’s promotional marketing rules address significant conditions and fair administration. Those questions sit alongside the gambling classification and privacy review; they are not replaced by it. Before an actual promotion launches, obtain appropriate qualified review of the full mechanism and communications. This website supplies planning information and arithmetic only, not final terms, advertising clearance or legal advice.

• Check every public statement against the reviewed facts.
• Do not advertise a prize or invite participation from this worksheet.