Notaries and Supervisory bodies: how countries ensure fair contests

Understanding the critical role of independent supervision in international prize promotions

Notaries and supervisory bodies play a crucial role in ensuring fairness and integrity in contests.

The requirement for notaries, judicial officers, or other supervisory authorities varies dramatically by jurisdiction, and misunderstanding these requirements can derail even the most carefully planned promotional campaign.

The in-depth analysis of the role of notaries and supervisory bodies in prize competitions was prepared by Martina Fumagalli, International Senior Account Manager at Promosfera.
In this article, Martina will help us understand why these players are essential to ensuring transparency, fairness, and legality in promotional activities.

You’ll find her practical advice and answers to the most common questions throughout the article.

Why independent oversight matters

Building consumer trust through transparency

The credibility of any prize contest rests on a foundation of trust. Participants need assurance that:

Winners are selected fairly according to published rules
No manipulation or fraud occurs during the selection process
All regulatory requirements are properly met
Their rights as participants are protected

When oversight is absent or inadequate in jurisdictions where it’s required, brands face not just regulatory penalties but lasting damage to consumer confidence.

The question isn’t simply whether supervision is required—it’s understanding exactly what form that supervision must take in each market.

Consider these variables: Who qualifies as an acceptable supervisory authority? Must they be physically present, or can they review documentation remotely? Is pre-approval of contest software required? Does certification need to happen before, during, or after the contest?

These operational details dramatically affect your budget, timeline, and execution strategy. Cutting corners on supervision where it’s mandated doesn’t just risk penalties—it can void your entire promotional effort.

Regional approaches to contest oversight

European Markets

Belgium

Rules must be clear, with well-defined and transparent evaluation criteria. When juries are involved, impartiality and objectivity must be guaranteed. Authorities monitor contests to prevent irregularities or discrimination.

France

The “Huissier de Justice” (judicial officer) serves a function similar to a notary. While not legally mandatory, their involvement is highly recommended as it provides valuable legal protection should disputes arise.

Greece

Though not compulsory, many companies opt to file contest rules and related documentation with a notary.

Italy

Italian regulations take the strictest approach in Europe, making notarial involvement mandatory for prize drawings and awards. Their involvement is legally required for prize promotions and serves as formal proof of transparency.

Portugal

Portuguese law distinguishes between chance-based and skill-based formats. Chance contests require formal governmental authorization, while skill contests benefit from—but don’t legally require—notarial deposit of rules.

Spain

While Spanish law doesn’t mandate notarial involvement, market practice has established it as standard procedure, particularly when substantial prizes are at stake. This custom adds credibility that benefits both promoters and participants.

United Kingdom

British regulations require “independent persons” to oversee judging and drawing procedures—a unique approach that explicitly excludes both promoters and their appointed agents from serving in this capacity. This necessitates engaging genuinely independent third parties.

International jurisdictions

Argentina

Argentine regulations require an “escribano público” (public notary) to witness both the drawing process and the actual delivery of major prizes.

United Arab Emirates

UAE authorities must be present for any chance-based drawing affecting UAE residents, regardless of where that drawing physically occurs. Promoters bear full responsibility for the official’s travel and accommodation expenses.

Philippines

Philippine regulations mandate government official supervision throughout the prize awarding process, with specific procedural requirements and deadlines that must be met.

Japan

Japanese regulatory authorities maintain ongoing oversight powers that extend beyond contest completion. Companies may face inquiries about promotional practices even after campaigns have ended.

Guatemala

Guatemalan law requires dual oversight: both a government representative and a notary from the Ministerio de la Gobernación must be present at drawings. Promoters must additionally report to authorities once prizes have been awarded.

Question: “Given the diversity of supervisory systems you’ve described—from French judicial officers to UK independent persons to various government officials globally—what’s the single biggest operational headache for multi-market campaigns?”

Answer: “The fundamental challenge is synchronizing compliance across jurisdictions with fundamentally different requirements—all for a single contest event. Imagine running a drawing that must simultaneously satisfy: Country A (requiring a notary’s physical attendance), Country B (mandating advance software certification), and Country C (requiring post-event validation by an independent body). You’re coordinating multiple supervisory authorities, potentially across multiple time zones, each with their own procedural expectations, all for one moment in time. This demands extraordinary legal and operational precision, plus technology platforms that can satisfy diverse certification requirements. Success isn’t just about having supervision—it’s about having the right supervision for each jurisdiction, orchestrated seamlessly.”

Procedural Requirements by Contest Type

Chance-based contests: heightened scrutiny

Luck-based promotions typically face more stringent oversight requirements:

Pre-launch documentation: Some jurisdictions like Portugal require comprehensive submission packages including financial guarantees
Real-time supervision: UK regulations mandate independent oversight when inserting winning elements into “Open & Win” mechanics
Result verification: Many markets expect formal documentation of outcomes, even where not legally required

Skill-Based contests: focus on fairness

Merit-based competitions have distinct considerations:

Jury composition: Many countries require independent juries for skill assessment
Published criteria: Evaluation standards must be clearly defined in official rules
Decision documentation: Some markets require maintaining records of how judging decisions were reached

Digital technologies and regulatory adaptation

Software certification and random number generation

The digital transformation of contests has introduced new oversight dimensions:

Software certification: Many jurisdictions now require certification of random number generators before they can be used
Pre-determined outcomes: UK instant win mechanics must use winning moments that are pre-generated
Advance software submission: Portuguese authorities require pre-campaign software review and approval
Authorized platforms only: Australian regulations prohibit generic online drawing tools, requiring locally certified software instead
Ministry-managed oversight: Philippine regulations put software supervision directly under ministerial control
Participation tracking systems: Brazilian promoters must implement unique identification codes for participants and submit participation volume estimates

Managing multi-jurisdiction compliance

Operational complexity at scale

Running contests across multiple countries means simultaneously:

Reconciling requirements that may conflict with each other
Managing relationships with diverse supervisory bodies
Coordinating varying approval timelines
Aligning the different levels of supervision required

Consequences of getting It wrong

Failing to meet local oversight requirements can trigger:

Substantial regulatory fines
Forced campaign termination
Lasting brand reputation damage
Participant lawsuits
Legal inability to distribute prizes

Real-world complexity: why expertise matters

Understanding global oversight requirements reveals why a standardized approach fail. Consider these realities:

Supervisory authority types vary dramatically

Beyond notaries, we encounter “Huissiers de Justice” (France), independent persons (UK—neither the promoter nor its agents qualify), local public officials (Argentina, Philippines), “Escribano Público” with ministerial representatives (Guatemala), or local authorities (UAE).

Supervision timing differs

In some markets, oversight happens during the drawing. In Portugal and the Philippines, it occurs beforehand through software approval. In Japan, it can happen after campaign completion. Each jurisdiction defines how and when supervision occurs.

Technology requirements aren’t universal

Australia demands locally certified software and prohibits generic online tools. Brazil requires specific participant identification systems. Adapting your technology platform to meet diverse local oversight standards presents significant technical and legal challenges.

Strategic approach to global oversight

Each jurisdiction maintains its own oversight frameworks, procedural requirements, and technology standards based on contest mechanics. Attempting to navigate these differences without specialized expertise exposes promotional campaigns to serious risks—from substantial penalties to complete inability to fulfill prize obligations.

Protect your campaign integrity and brand reputation—reach out to discuss your multi-market requirements.