Description:
The retailer’s website advertised their 30-day money-back-guarantee, promoted their easy-returns and encouraged consumers to try their product risk-free. In doing so, the website used statements such as, “if your child isn’t calmer within days, it’s FREE”, “if you don’t feel calm and happy, you don’t pay”, “if you’re not 100% happy with your purchase, we offer a 30-day money back guarantee”, and “if it’s not perfect, returns are easy”. The website also included the advertiser’s various policies around returns, exchanges, refunds and store credits.
Complaint:
The complainant challenged the accuracy of these statements, alleging the advertising was false and misleading, because upon reviewing the advertiser’s various policies, she discovered that they do not offer refunds, but rather only offer store credits, and that customers are responsible for paying return shipping.
According to the complainant, these policies directly contradict the advertising statements and induce purchases under false impression that a full money-back refund is available.
Response:
In its response to Council, the advertiser submitted that their 30-day money-back-guarantee applies to returns where customers are not satisfied with the quality of their product and that those customers receive a store credit. Their policy covering a return of the monetary amount paid and return shipping costs specifically applies to items that are received in damaged or defective condition.
Decision:
Council appreciated the advertiser’s response and considered the complaint together with the advertiser’s submission.
In their discussions, Council members all agreed that the language used in the advertisement implied that all money spent would be given back to the customer if their purchase was returned. One Council member stated that, “even using the word ‘refund’ is misleading given how the return policy works”.
The language used, according to Council, seems related to an exchange, not a refund, and that a store credit is considerably different than a refund.
Furthermore, the advertisement would have benefitted from the inclusion of an asterisk notifying consumers that these material conditions and restrictions apply and by linking to the appropriate policy information on the advertiser’s website, which was not easy to find, in the view of Council.
In its determination, Council unanimously held the advertisement contained an inaccurate, deceptive or otherwise misleading claim, statement, illustration or representation, in contravention of Clause 1(a) of the Code.
Infraction:
Clause 1(a)
