Influencer’s Rolex raffle descends into chaos as she promises followers they can win £16,350 watch for just £1 before being forced to cancel competition

An influencer’s raffle for a £16,350 Rolex has backfired after she promised fans they could win the expensive watch for just £1 before being forced to cancel the competition.

Bridgey Barbara, who describes herself on TikTok as a ‘proud Irish traveller’, announced in November that she would be offering her one million social media followers a chance to win a Rolex GMT-Master.

Taking to TikTok to showcase the impressive timepiece, she explained that raffle tickets would cost £1 each and people could enter as many times as they like. Numbers were going to be picked at random ahead of the raffle being drawn. 

But a month later, the mother-of-four admitted she ‘didn’t know what she’d gotten herself into’ and raised the price from £1 to £10 ‘because these tickets are not going quick enough’.

She explained in a clip: ‘At this rate, I’m going to have to be refunding people if we don’t get these tickets on the go… I can’t let the watch go if there’s not enough tickets.

‘I’ll never do this again, ever,’ she confessed, explaining that she had only received £4,000 worth of tickets amid some fans suggesting the Rolex was ‘fake’.

‘The watch is a million per cent authentic, I would not be doing a raffle on a watch that was not real,’ insisted Bridgey. ‘I get the backlash, me… the person that wins it can get it checked at a jewellers of their choice.’

However, despite her appeal for more people to get involved, the England-based traveller was forced to cancel her raffle last week due to the money raised not covering the cost of the expensive timepiece, priced at £16,350 on the Rolex website.

In a Facebook post, Bridgey, who appeared on the YouTube series Love Don’t Judge in 2022, in an episode called: ‘I’m Marrying A Prisoner’, about her romance with inmate Tommy, explained how she ‘bit off more than I can chew’ and said ‘everyone who entered will be fully refunded’. 

She later claimed that she would also give fans the chance to win the £3,414 raised instead of a refund, with followers having until Friday to declare whether they wanted a refund or to continue with the raffle for the opportunity to win the cash.

Chad Teixeira, a sales and PR expert, told The Daily Mail how influencers often don’t realise how an online raffle is a ‘dangerous PR move’ because it is ‘fraught with risk’.

The PR consultant said: ‘Online raffles are often presented as quick, low-effort ways to generate revenue, but in reality they’re are super complex, highly regulated and fraught with risk. 

‘The moment money changes hands, you’re dealing with gambling laws, consumer protection rules and advertising standards and many influencers simply aren’t set up for that level of compliance. It’s way out of their scope.

‘From a brand and sales standpoint, the reputational fallout can be severe. If a raffle doesn’t sell out, refunds alone don’t fix the damage, consumers begin questioning legitimacy and intent. 

‘There’s also the added concern around high-value prizes like luxury watches, where audiences may worry whether an item is authentic, legally sourced, or even exists at all. Those doubts can spread rapidly online.

‘It’s a dangerous PR move. What looks like a “simple” £1 ticket campaign can quickly become a credibility crisis. 

‘Without clear terms, proof of ownership, compliance checks and contingency planning, these raffles can undermine trust overnight. Not just for the individual involved, but for influencer-led commerce as a whole.’

In Bridgey’s case, most fans were understanding about the influencer’s dilemma, with some shocked anyone would want a £1 refund, and others suggesting she should just give all the money to charity. 

However, some seemed to suggest the influencer was ‘scamming’ and a ‘liar’ to which she hit back claiming ‘every single penny can be accounted for’. 

Replying to one troll, Bridgey said: ‘It’s mad how people think they can comment absolute s**** on content creators’ pages. Scammer. Thief. Fraud. Liar. Every name under the sun. But the second you reply and defend yourself suddenly you’re the problem.

‘“You should ignore it.” “You’re too defensive.” “Rise above it.” “You’re a bully” No. You don’t get to throw stones, lie on someone’s name, then cry victim when they answer back. 

‘If you’re brave enough to comment it publicly, be brave enough to stand on it when you’re corrected. And if you’re wrong? That’s on you, not me. 

‘Funny how “free speech” only applies until they get a reply back. Anyway comment sections aren’t confession boxes. Say it with your chest or don’t say it at all. 

‘You might just know me as Bridgey Barbara, but that name belongs to a real person a mummy, a sister, a daughter, and someone with feelings like anyone else.’ 

More and more raffles are failing to hit ticket targets as people become suspicious of them, while many influencers offering these sorts of competitions fail to realise the strict guidelines surrounding them.

Raffaly, a website that helps people run online raffles, said: ‘If you want to open up your raffle to the general public or raise money for charity, you’re entering public lottery territory. 

‘In this case, you might need a licence, either from the local authority or the Gambling Commission, depending on the size of your raffle.

‘For smaller raffles raising money for charity, a small society lottery licence from your local authority will cover you. But if your raffle is larger or more commercial, you’ll need to register with the Gambling Commission.’

The Gambling Commission said prize competitions and free draws do not require a licence to operate as long as they meet the rules set out in the Gambling Act 2005 that distinguish them from a lottery.

Free draws and prize competitions (where the outcome is determined by the participants skill, judgement or knowledge) can be run for commercial or private gain and can be used when promoting a product or raffling a high-value item such as a car. 

It’s unclear if Bridgey needed, or had, a licence in place for her Rolex raffle.

Bridgey’s Rolex raffle isn’t the first time that an influencer’s competition has caused chaos.

In 2021, it was revealed that Molly-Mae Hague’s £8,000 Instagram giveaway breached promotion rules after the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) upheld 12 people’s complaints.

The advertising watchdog said the competition, held by the Love Island star in September 2020, wasn’t administered fairly in accordance with the laws of chance.

Molly-Mae’s £8K Instagram giveaway, to celebrate 1 million YouTube subscribers, included Louis Vuitton handbags and Apple products. She insisted that they had all been bought by her and not paid for or sponsored by others.

The influencer told her 5.2 million followers to like, subscribe and tag a friend to be in with a chance of winning.

After the giveaway, 12 people complained to the advertising watchdog as they believed not all of the participants had been included in the final draw. 

The ASA said that 100 people were selected at random from a hat with a winner determined from a computer programme, although they noted that there was no evidence to show that the initial chosen participants were random. 

The 12 people also questioned whether the £8K giveaway was awarded in accordance with the laws of chance and the promotion administered fairly. The Advertising Standards Authority upheld the complaints on both issues. 

Molly-Mae said that she didn’t believe the giveaway to be a promotion or to fall into the rules as it did not provide an incentive to engage with one of the brands included in the competition.

The reality star added that the response to the giveaway had been ‘overwhelming and unexpected’.  

The ASA said in a statement: ‘We were concerned by the inconsistencies in the information provided, but in either case, we had not seen evidence to show that the shortlisted participants were chosen randomly.’

‘Although Ms Hague indicated that the eventual prize winner was selected randomly using computer software, we had not seen evidence to show that was the case either,’ they added. 

‘We had not seen evidence that the prize was awarded in accordance with the laws of chance and by an independent person or under the supervision of an independent person.’ 

While the ASA ruling said: ‘We told Molly-Mae Hague to ensure their future promotions were administered fairly and that prizes were awarded to genuine winners in accordance with the laws of chance and by an independent person or under the supervision of an independent person.’

The Daily Mail contacted both ASA and Molly-Mae for further comment at the time.

Bridgey, meanwhile, announced the end of her chaotic Rolex raffle earlier this month on Facebook, writing: ‘I just want to be honest with you all.

‘I started a raffle for a Rolex at £1 a ticket. It was the first raffle I’ve ever done and if I’m being completely truthful, I feel like I’ve bitten off more than I can chew.

‘It’s caused me a lot of stress and the numbers just aren’t where they need to be for the raffle to go ahead properly. The money made doesn’t cover the cost of the watch, so I won’t be able to continue with it.

‘Because of that, everyone who entered will be fully refunded. Please inbox me your details so I can sort this as quickly as possible. I’m genuinely sorry to anyone who entered. 

‘I really thought by doing it at £1 a ticket more people would be able to get involved, but it’s a lesson learned for me. Thank you to those who supported it, and thank you for understanding. 

‘I always want to do things properly and fairly, even when it means holding my hands up and saying this one hasn’t worked out.’

Prior to ending the Rolex raffle, the influencer had pleaded with fans to join in with the competition, saying in a TikTok clip: ‘Guys I literally don’t know what I’ve got myself into. Why did I do £1 tickets, why, why did I do it, please tell me why did I do £1 tickets.

‘Because at this rate, I’m going to have to be refunding people if we don’t get these tickets on the go. So now, I’m changing it, it’s not a pound anymore, it’s £10 to enter. 

‘Because these tickets are not going quick enough… I can’t let the watch go, if there’s not enough tickets. See, if I would’ve done £10 a ticket to begin with, the watch would’ve been gone by now, but I thought you know what, I’ve got nearly a million followers, surely everyone will get involved.’

Upon her first announcing the raffle, in which she shared a video of the Rolex, some fans claimed the watch ‘wasn’t real’. 

But the mother-of-four hit back at the allegations, saying: ‘The watch is a million per cent authentic, I would not be doing a raffle on a watch that was not real. I get the backlash, me… The person that wins it can get it checked at a jewellers of their choice. 

‘But guys I’m going to have to do £10 tickets. I need to get these numbers out if not I am going to be spending the rest of the year, refunding people. 

‘There’s literally £4,000 worth of £1 tickets that I’ve got to go back through all the payments and start refunding people. Please get involved in my raffle. I’ve got too much going on. I’ll never do this again, ever,’ she insisted. 

Despite some people’s comments suggesting she was a ‘scammer’, Bridgey said in a social media post that she had received ‘supportive messages’, even from those who had entered the now-cancelled raffle.

‘I won’t lie, the pressure I felt owning up and admitting the raffle didn’t go to plan was unreal,’ she admitted. 

‘Putting my hands up publicly and knowing there could be backlash was genuinely scary. But the amount of supportive messages I’ve had, especially from people who actually entered, has been so nice and has meant more to me than you know.’

Bridgey’s last update on the situation said that the final cash prize was now slightly less than the £3,414 posted earlier due to a few more refunds being requested.

‘Any refund requests need to be in by next Friday. If I don’t hear from you, your entry stays in. Good luck guys,’ she wrote on Facebook on January 9. 

At the time of writing, it was unclear if the raffle had been drawn and if all the refunds requested had been given.