Description:
An in-store billboard advertised prices for various haircut services. Each price listed contained a “+” symbol next to it in superscript. There was no additional disclosure on the billboard relating to the + symbol.
Complaint:
The complainant alleged that the advertisement was false and misleading because significant undisclosed costs are added after the service has been provided resulting in advertised prices that are unattainable. The complainant noted he was told by the advertiser that their rate is $80 per hour, that the prices listed in the advertisement are their base prices, and that the + symbol beside each price indicates that the final cost may be higher than the price listed. Determining the cost of a haircut based on length of time is a subjective way of estimating its value, the complaint claimed.
Response:
Although Ad Standards requested a response from the advertiser, there was no response sent to Council.
Decision:
Based on the information Council had before them, it questioned if anyone would ever be able to obtain a haircut at the base/minimum price listed in the advertisement. Council found the suggested pricing structure to be an example of deceptive drip pricing. Council was of the view that without disclosing the additional details with regards to what the + symbol represented, consumers are left to try and figure that out, which is unacceptable. One Council member noted, “charging by the hour is not how haircuts are normally priced, so the average consumer wouldn’t expect to be charged that way…it needs qualification”.
In its determination, Council unanimously held the advertisement was not clearly and understandably stated, omitted information relevant to consumers’ purchase decisions, and contained an inaccurate and deceptive price claim, in contravention of Clause 1 and Clause 3 of the Code.
Infraction:
Clause 1(a), Clause 1(b), Clause 1(c), Clause 3(a)
