Case Number #135

Clauses: Clause 1 (Accuracy and Clarity); Clause 3 (Price Claims)

Concerns: Misleading Promotional Offer

Advertiser: Top Dog Pizza

Region: British Columbia

Industry: Restaurants, Fast Foods & Bars

Media Type: Advertiser Website

Number of Complaints: 1

Year: 2024

Description:

The advertiser’s webpage offered a deal on pizzas. The promotion appeared on the website as “2 for 1 Large. Order any 2 large pizzas and receive 2 for 1 pricing.” This was also the case for their “2 for 1 small” promotion. When clicking on a “Learn more” button, a pop up opened with the information: “What you get: 22.5% discount to items value” (for the large pizza promotion), and “What you get: 20% discount to items value” (for the small promotion).

Complaint:

The complainant challenged the promotion was misleading as they understood the deal was to two pizzas for the price of one pizza (i.e. one pizza at the regular price and get the second one for free), but in fact the second pizza was only discounted at about 45% off.

Response:

In its response to Council, the advertiser mentioned that they had to clarify the terms of this promotion to numerous customers in the past. They explained that the promotion was not two pizzas for the price of one pizza, but a set pricing model that offers two pizzas at one set discounted price.

Decision:

Council appreciated the advertiser’s response, and considered the complaint together with the advertiser’s submission.

In its deliberations, Council noted that the “2 for 1” promotion model is commonly understood in advertising to mean receiving two items for the price of one item. Council found the use of the “2 for 1” promotion title was misleading in this case, as it gave the impression that customers would receive two pizzas for the price of one pizza, whereas the promotion only offered a discounted price on the purchase of two pizzas.

Council also found that the disclaimer, accessible via the “Learn more” button, contradicted the “2 for 1” message.

For these reasons, Council unanimously found that the ad made deceptive and misleading claims and that the disclaimer contradicted the more prominent aspects of the message, in violation of Clauses 1(a) and 1(d) of the Code. Council also found that the ad included deceptive discounts, therefore breaching Clause 3(a) of the Code.

Infraction:

Clause 1(a), Clause 1(d) and Clause 3(a)

Scroll to top