Fraud number 2 : the decoy
McDonald's Monopoly is made of two to three distinct games. There is the collect-to-win game (which is the core of the fraud, the fraud number 1), there is the instant-win (which is a confirmed fraud in many countries as we will explain later) and finally, in some countries, there is a third way of playing which is the "chance card".
You must always remember that the instant-win game, in which they claimed 1 chance out of X, is primarily a decoy to drive your attention away from the fraud number 1, the collect-to-win game.
If you've played enough, you would have realized that it was impossible or almost impossible to complete a property set because as we've explained, the game was rigged. So that you wouldn't realize the game was rigged, McDonald's added to the collect-to-win game (the essence of the Monopoly board game) an additional way of playing which is the instant-win and which doesn't exist in the traditional Monopoly game. The purpose being to be used as a decoy to drive your attention away from the core of the fraud. McDonald's wants to make you believe that it's possible to win.
When consumers aren't able to complete a property set, but they get instead a small or medium French fries, overall they feel less bad. It's what we call a consolation prize. But what does this instant-win has to do with the Monopoly? Nothing! The Monopoly is a collection game, not an instant-win game. So why did they add it? To distract you, to drive your attention away from the main fraud so that you wouldn't realize the game was rigged and that some properties were actually impossible to get.
Ask yourself the question why they call their game Monopoly and instead of giving the odds for being able to complete a property set, why do they give the odds of a game (instant-win, 1 chance out of X) which has nothing to do with the actual Monopoly! Why give the odds of something completely unrelated? If they wanted to call their game Monopoly, wouldn't it have been more logical to give the odds of being able to complete an entire property set? Because this is the very essence of the game Monopoly and the consumers naturally think that if there are 26 properties, they have 1 chance out of 26 to get any of these 26 properties. If this wasn't the case, McDonald's should have made it clear on the advertising material, right next to the word "Monopoly". Instead of this, they used the instant-win as a decoy to mislead the consumers.
In the United States, 1 chance out of 4 or 1 chance out of 8?
McDonald's lied about the odds in the United States. They claimed 1 chance out of 4 to win instantly. The real number was 1 chance out of 8. The advertising material in the United States mentioned very ambiguously that the odds were based on a "double sticker".
What does that mean? Based on a double sticker?
It means that odds were calculated based on a game piece composed of 2 stickers. The "1 chance out of 4" was based per game piece (game piece composed of 2 stickers) and not per sticker. It's the equivalent of the mathematical equation 1/4 = 1/x + 1/x.
Basically, McDonald's wants you to think you have more chances than you really have. Why not simply claim "1 chance out of 8"? What is preventing McDonald's to state the truth? Even in the United States, we are absolutely certain that McDonald's will end up being condemned for their false claims because there was nothing which prevented them from simply stating the truth : 1 chance out of 8. The only purpose was to mislead the consumers.
This mention didn't even appear in other countries!
In many countries, the mention that the odds were based on a double sticker didn't even appear! McDonald's claimed you had 1 chance out of 4 to win instantly, period! Nothing else was said. Not even a fine print with "based on a double winning sticker". Nope! Nothing! It later appeared that the real odds were 1 chance out of 8.
But remember it's first of all a decoy!
Always remember that this instant-win game is first of all a decoy. For the countries were McDonald's lied about the instant-win odds or mislead the consumers, it will be one additional count of fraud. Remember though to keep your main focus on the collect-to-win fraud.