- BP advertised a toy car giveaway tied to fuel purchases and loyalty swipes but failed to deliver.
- Consumers followed every step, only to be told the cars had run out months before the promotion ended.
- The ARB upheld complaints, citing misleading claims and a lack of product availability.
They were meant to bring joy. Limited edition toy cars, offered as part of a national fuel promotion, carried more than just plastic value.
For collectors, they were milestones. For parents, they created shared memories. For thousands of South Africans, there were rewards earned through loyalty and repeat purchases. Instead, they became symbols of betrayal.
BP Southern Africa ran a campaign that promised these cars to customers who filled up with R500 or more four times, swiped their Smart Shopper and BP Rewards cards, and opted into SMS alerts. The final step, collecting the toy car, was where the promise fell apart.
“I qualified. I got the SMS. Then they told me there were no cars,” said one complainant. Another consumer reported calling BP in July and being told that 17 000 people had not received their cars, even though the campaign was supposed to run until the end of August.
BP refused to respond
When the Advertising Regulatory Board invited BP to respond to the complaints, the company declined. That silence became central to the ruling.
The ARB found that the campaign misled consumers not only through what it said but also through what it failed to say. The advertised reward was unavailable, and the company provided no explanation. The Board ruled that BP had no reasonable grounds to believe it could meet the demand its own campaign would generate. The cars ran out months before the promotion ended, and the fine print was “essentially invisible.”
“There may be a reasonable explanation,” the ARB stated, “but the Advertiser has chosen not to respond.” That silence spoke louder than any billboard.
The Directorate concluded that the advertising broke Clause 4.2.1 of Section II, which prohibits any statement or visual presentation likely to mislead the consumer. It also found a violation of Clause 16 of Section III, which requires advertisers to ensure they can meet any demand likely created by their advertising.
Based on the evidence, the ARB said, “the only reasonable conclusion that the Directorate is able to reach is that they were unable to do so.”
A broken promise, not just a broken supply chain
BP is not a member of the ARB, which means the ruling is not binding. However, the Board made it clear that its decisions guide members on whether to accept or withdraw advertising. In this case, the guidance is clear. The campaign was misleading, and the product was not available.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
