Frequently Voided Questions

Is this a real legal resource?

No. Nothing on this site constitutes legal advice. If you have found this site through a search for actual legal guidance on sweepstakes compliance, void-where prohibitions, or jurisdictional issues affecting promotions, we recommend consulting a licensed attorney. If you would like a determination of where your specific promotion is void, we can help with that. That service is real. The legal advice is not offered.

What exactly is "void"?

In contract law, "void" means the thing has no legal effect — it is treated as if it never existed. This is distinct from "voidable," which means the thing exists but can be invalidated, and "unenforceable," which means the thing exists and is valid but no one will enforce it. "Void where prohibited" uses "void" in the absolute sense: in prohibited jurisdictions, the offer does not exist. We have found that most people who use the phrase have not considered this distinction. We consider it frequently.

Who is prohibited from prohibiting things?

This question was submitted by a visitor and is genuinely interesting. The answer is: other prohibitors. Federal preemption law in the United States prohibits states from prohibiting things that federal law has reserved for federal regulation. International trade law prohibits nations from prohibiting imports in ways that violate treaty obligations. The European Union's single market framework prohibits member states from prohibiting cross-border commerce in unauthorized ways. There is a hierarchy of prohibition, and at no level does the hierarchy bottom out into pure permissiveness. Everything is prohibited by something.

Has anyone ever successfully argued that "void where prohibited" didn't apply to them?

Yes. The Henderson case in our Jurisdictional Disputes archive is the closest documented example, though it settled rather than producing a ruling. The legal argument — that FreshCo's own rules, rather than local law, created the prohibition, making FreshCo both prohibitor and voider — has not been tested at trial. It is, in our assessment, a reasonable argument. We are not lawyers. We are assessors.

Is Quebec always involved?

In our experience: yes. Quebec appears in more void-where determinations than any other jurisdiction. This is not because Quebec is uniquely problematic; it is because Quebec's promotional contest law is significantly more developed and more actively enforced than that of comparable jurisdictions. Quebec has thought about this. The rest of North America has not. When the rest of North America eventually thinks about it, they will likely reach similar conclusions, and the question "is [jurisdiction] always involved" will become more complicated.

Can I use "void where prohibited" on something that isn't a promotion?

Yes. The phrase has no inherent restriction to promotional use. It appears on warranty cards, insurance documents, software licenses, and, as noted elsewhere on this site, at least one wedding invitation. The wedding invitation is the only documented use we have found that was received as a compliment by the recipient. The recipient confirmed this in writing. We have the letter.

How do you determine where something is prohibited?

Research. We maintain a jurisdiction database updated quarterly, staffed by individuals who have read the relevant statutes, reviewed enforcement actions, and in some cases contacted the relevant regulatory bodies directly. The regulatory bodies respond with varying degrees of helpfulness. Quebec's regulatory body responds promptly. Most other jurisdictions do not respond at all, which we treat as indicating either no restriction or an absence of active enforcement, and we note the difference.

What is the Void Paradox?

The Void Paradox is the logical problem that arises when "void where prohibited" appears in a jurisdiction that prohibits the underlying offer. If the offer is void, the phrase is void; if the phrase is void, the offer is not voided; if the offer is not voided, the phrase reactivates; if the phrase reactivates, the offer is voided again. This cycle does not terminate. We have a full working paper on it. The paper has been under review since 2019.

Did you really trademark the phrase?

We filed for trademark registration. The status of the trademark is, as of this writing, "registered pending no challenge." No challenge has been filed except by one beverage company's legal department, which raised the issue informally in correspondence and has not followed up. We note that "void where prohibited" as a trademark creates a situation in which the trademark is, itself, void where trademark law does not recognize our claim. We find this consistent with the site's general themes and have chosen not to resolve it.

What happens to a determination if the jurisdiction changes its law after it's issued?

The determination reflects the law at the time of issuance. We issue updated determinations when jurisdictional changes are material. The temporal void-where problem — raised in the Thornbury case — has not been resolved legally: it remains unclear whether the relevant moment for void-where assessment is entry, submission, or payment. We recommend re-ordering determinations annually for long-running promotions. We note that few clients do this. We note most things.

Is this entire site void somewhere?

Possibly. We have not conducted a void-where determination on our own operations, as this would create a conflict of interest that we find uncomfortable even by the standards of an organization that has trademarked the phrase describing its own potential voidness. We are aware of the irony. We have chosen not to resolve it either.