Verifiable random draws: how to choose competition winners fairly

Trust is not created by displaying a spinning wheel or broadcasting a screen. It comes from being able to show which entries were eligible, how the winner was selected and what evidence was retained afterwards.

Does every UK competition legally need a particular RNG?

No. There is no blanket UK rule saying that every competition website must buy one named random-number service. The correct method depends on whether the promotion is a chance-based prize draw, a judged prize competition or another arrangement.

For a prize draw, however, the CAP Code requires winners to be selected in accordance with the laws of chance by a verifiably random computer process, or under the supervision of an independent person. CAP’s guidance on selecting prize winners says the ASA would expect to see evidence of the computer process and that promoters must be able to demonstrate random selection.

That distinction is important. “Random” describes the selection; “verifiable” describes your ability to prove what happened. If you cannot produce an input record, selection record or independent evidence after a complaint, a dramatic live reveal does not solve the underlying problem.

What a defensible draw record should contain

• A frozen eligible pool: the complete set of valid paid and free entries included at the point of drawing.
• Clear exclusions: cancelled, refunded, duplicate or ineligible entries removed using rules stated in advance.
• A pool fingerprint or retained export: evidence that the source list was not silently changed after selection.
• An identifiable method: the service, algorithm or independent observer used and the time the draw occurred.
• A result record: winning and reserve entries, prize allocation and any later redraw with its reason.
• Appropriate privacy controls: public proof without publishing unnecessary entrant data.
• Retention: records kept for a period justified by your terms, complaints process and legal obligations.

Independent draw services to evaluate

The following are examples rather than raffleWP endorsements. Features, limits, pricing, data locations and terms can change, so complete your own technical, privacy and legal due diligence.

Questions to ask a draw supplier

1. Does the service produce a durable draw ID, certificate or independently accessible result?
2. Can it prove the entry count and show whether a particular entry was included without exposing the full customer list?
3. How is randomness generated, tested and protected from alteration by the promoter?
4. Can it select reserve winners and document redraws?
5. What personal data must be uploaded, where is it processed and how long is it retained?
6. What entry limits, file formats, API options and charges apply?
7. Is the service suitable for your type of promotion and every country in which it will run?

Where raffleWP fits

raffleWP focuses on creating competitions, allocating entries and keeping the operational records connected to WordPress and WooCommerce. Administrators can filter a competition and export its entries for an external draw workflow. The optional built-in winner selector is also available, but the operator decides which method is appropriate.

Whichever route you choose, close the competition first, complete payment and refund processing, add every valid postal entry, preserve the eligible pool and record the selected winner back in your operational system. CAP’s broader prize draw guidance also stresses proper supervision, accurate entry tracking, accessible terms and responsible prize fulfilment.