Description:
An ad appearing on the advertiser’s website, promised a “no rate increase” of monthly phone service fees for the duration of the service.
Complaint:
The complainant considered the claim “no rate increase” to be misleading, as their monthly rate had increased. They provided an email from the advertiser stating that the price adjustment applied to monthly billing, but that the complainant could retain their current rate by switching to annual billing.
Response:
In its response to the Council, the advertiser stated that there is no fixed contract between the company and its customers, and that their website indicates that fees are subject to change. They explained that the complainant could have retained their original service rate by switching from monthly to annual billing, and therefore asserted that the claim within the ad was not misleading or inaccurate.
Decision:
Council reviewed the ad alongside the complaint and the advertiser’s response.
While Council members acknowledge that the complainant had been offered the option to keep their service rate by switching to annual billing, they found that this condition was not disclosed in the ad. Some members further noted that the ‘no rate increase’ claim should apply based on the original billing cycle (i.e. monthly), and that requiring a switch to an annual billing cycle constituted a change in service.
Considering this, Council members unanimously concluded that the ad was misleading in its claim that the rate would not change, thereby breaching Clause 1(a). Furthermore, the failure to clearly disclose the requirement to switch to annual billing in order to maintain the original rate was found to contravene Clause 1(b).
Infraction:
Clause 1(a) and Clause 1(b)
