Description:
A social media advertisement offered a $100 savings card with the financing of a phone on select plans through the advertiser’s authorized dealer for a limited time. The ad contained a call-to-action to visit redwireless.ca to unlock the offer. There was no reference in the ad to terms and conditions or to exclusions and/or limitations.
Complaint:
The complainant alleged that after he took advantage of the promotional offer and financed a total of four (4) phones for himself and his family, he was told by the advertiser that the terms and conditions of the offer state a limit of one (1) savings card per account. This was an important exclusion that he claimed misled him to believe he qualified for the promotional offer for each of his four phones, as advertised. He said that had he been aware of the restriction, it would have changed his purchasing decision.
Response:
In its response to Council, the advertiser confirmed that its social media post was intended to bring viewers to its website or to call and cannot specify all details of the offer due to its size and purpose, therefore, the one (1) savings card per account limitation was reserved for the full terms and conditions available on its website. In addition, the advertiser advised that these terms and conditions were also shared with its contact centre staff so that they were able to express these terms, including the limitation, to any consumers who ordered by phone. Additionally, the advertiser informed Council that the terms and conditions were also available on the advertiser’s authorized dealer’s website.
Decision:
Council appreciated the advertiser’s response, and considered the complaint together with the advertiser’s submission.
In its discussions, Council members found that there were significant pieces missing to fully understand the promotional offer. In Council’s view, the limitation of one (1) savings card per account was an important exclusion to explicitly call out in the ad. Additionally, the fact that there were terms and conditions governing the offer was also an important exclusion that was missing from the ad. According to Council, not only should reference to the offer’s terms and conditions have been qualified with an asterisk, but a direct link to the offer’s terms and conditions, and not simply a link to the advertiser’s homepage, should have also been provided so that consumers did not have to go searching for the terms and conditions on the advertiser’s website.
Council unanimously held that the advertisement omitted relevant information resulting in an advertisement that was deceptive or misleading.
Infraction:
Clause 1(b)
