2013 Consumer Complaint Case Summaries
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
33 Bloor Street East, Suite 303 Toronto, Ontario M4W 3H1 Tel: 416 961-6311 adstandards.ca Overview The following are case summaries of consumer complaints about advertising that were upheld by Standards Councils for 2013. Councils are composed of senior advertising industry and public representatives, who volunteer their time to adjudicate consumer complaints under the provisions of the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards (Code). The case summaries are divided into two sections. Identified Cases This section identifies the involved advertisers and provides details about consumer complaints regarding advertisements that were found by a Council to contravene the Code. In this section, the advertising in question was not withdrawn or amended before Council met to deliberate on the complaint. Where provided, an “Advertiser’s Statement” is included in the case summary. Non-Identified Cases This section summarizes consumer complaints upheld by Council without identifying the advertiser or the advertisement. In these cases, the advertiser either withdrew, permanently retired, or appropriately amended the advertisement in question after being advised by Advertising Standards Canada that a complaint had been received, but before the matter was adjudicated by Council. As required by the Code, retail advertisers also ran timely corrective advertisements in consumer-oriented media that reached the same consumers to whom the original advertising was directed. For information about the Code and the Consumer Complaint Procedure, select the following links: Canadian Code of Advertising Standards Consumer Complaint Procedure Ad Standards Identified Cases - January 1, 2013 - December 31, 2013 Canadian Code of Advertising Standards Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity Advertiser: Canadian Affair Industry: Leisure services - Travel services Region: British Columbia Media: Newspapers Complaint(s): 1 Description: “Direct non-stop” flights from Vancouver to Glasgow were advertised. Complaint: The complainant alleged that all the advertised flights stopped in Calgary and were not “direct non- stop” flights, as advertised. Decision: In its response to Council, the advertiser explained that an unanticipated routing change necessitated a one-stop touchdown in Calgary on the Vancouver to Glasgow flight. As a result, the advertised flight was neither “direct” nor “non-stop.” Based on the facts, Council found that the advertisement was misleading. Infraction: Clause 1(a). Advertiser's We apologise for any confusion caused with our original advert, this was certainly not our intention. Verbatim Whilst we feel that the advert was appropriately amended prior to Ad Standards contacting us and Statement the meeting of Council, on receipt of Council’s decision we have further amended the advert for clarity as it was never our intention to mislead consumers. 2 Ad Standards Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity Advertiser: Canadian Tire Corporation Ltd. Industry: Retail (Supermarkets, Dept stores, etc.) Region: National Media: Brochures/leaflets/flyers Complaint(s): 1 Description: A sale on “all” 14, 15, 16 and 17 inch Motomaster tires was advertised in a flyer. The advertisement included a table that listed specific tire dimension parameters. Complaint: The complainant alleged that all the advertised flights stopped in Calgary and were not “direct non-stop” flights, as advertised. Decision: The advertiser explained that the table in the advertisement was intended to be a guide to the range of potential sizes that may be available, not a commitment that all would be available. To Council, however, the advertisement conveyed the impression that all the itemized tires were available during the promotion so long as they fell within the advertised parameters for section width, aspect ratio, and speed rating. Infraction: Clause 1(a), (b), and (c). Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity Advertiser: Canadian Tire Corporation Ltd. Industry: Retail (Supermarkets, Dept stores, etc.) Region: National 3 Ad Standards Media: Brochures/leaflets/flyers Complaint(s): 1 Description: A freestanding sun umbrella, along with its base, which was made up of four separate parts, were shown in a flyer advertisement. The umbrella base, which was sold as a separate item, was featured in the advertisement at $59.99. Complaint: The complainant alleged the advertisement was misleading because the $59.99 advertised price was only for one quarter of the base. Decision: The advertisement conveyed the impression that the entire base for the umbrella cost $59.99, when, in fact, the base consisted of four separate pieces, each of which cost $59.99. Because the advertisement did not make it clear that the price was for one quarter only, Council found that the advertising was misleading and omitted relevant information. Infraction: Clauses 1(a) and (b). Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity Advertiser: Canadian Tire Corporation Ltd. Industry: Retail (Supermarkets, Dept stores, etc.) Region: National Media: Brochures/leaflets/flyers Complaint(s): 1 Description: A specially-priced 201 piece tool set was advertised in a flyer. Complaint: The complainant alleged he could not purchase the advertised toolset. 4 Ad Standards Decision: In its response, the advertiser acknowledged that the toolset had been incorrectly illustrated in the flyer, but that upon learning of the error, the advertiser removed the incorrect photo of the toolkit from the database. Infraction: Clause 1(a). Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity Advertiser: Canadian Tire Corporation Ltd. Industry: Retail (Supermarkets, Dept stores, etc.) Region: National Media: Brochures/leaflets/flyers Complaint(s): 1 Description: A brand of dishwasher detergent was advertised in a flyer at 25% off the regular price. Complaint: The complainant alleged the advertiser would not honour the advertised price. Decision: In its response to Council, the advertiser explained that the wrong product was illustrated in the flyer. Based on the facts, Council found that the advertisement was inaccurate. Although the advertiser emailed its retail outlets advising them of the error, the stores do not appear to have been informed how, where, or when a correction notice should be posted in-store or elsewhere, or what the correction notice should say to ensure that consumers were made aware of the error. Infraction: Clause 1(a). 5 Ad Standards Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity Advertiser: Comwave Industry: Other Region: National Media: Audio Visual - Traditional televison Complaint(s): 1 Description: In a television commercial the advertiser promoted a $14.95 per month rate for unlimited local calling with “all the features” absolutely free. It was specifically stated in the audio portion of the commercial that “I get unlimited calling to 60 countries.” Complaint: The complaint alleged the advertisement was misleading because it suggested that the cost to call 60 countries was included in the $14.95 advertised monthly rate. Decision: The advertiser provided Council with the commercial, noting the inclusion of a small-type video super that read: “The Comwave lobal Plan with unlimited calling to over 60 countries has a monthly fee of $29.95.” To Council, the general impression conveyed by the commercial as a whole was that all the advertised features, including unlimited calling to 60 countries, was included in the monthly rate of $14.95. Contributing to this impression was the fact that the offer of “Only 14.95. All Features Free” was emphasized many times during the commercial both in audio and in very large print supers. As well, just before the “calling to 60 countries” claim, a voice-over announcer stated “You can try it for free, there’s nothing to lose.” Council understood the commercial included video supers. However, these supers, which materially qualified the principal claims and contradicted the main message communicated by the advertising, were illegible. Council, therefore, found that the commercial contained a misleading claim, omitted relevant information, did not clearly state all pertinent details of the offer, and contained disclaimers that were illegible and contradicted the main message. Infraction: Clauses 1(a), (b), (c) and (d). 6 Ad Standards Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity Advertiser: Comwave Networks Inc. Industry: Other Region: National Media: Audio Visual - Traditional televison Complaint(s): 1 Description: Home phone service was advertised in a television commercial. Complaint: The complainant alleged the commercial was misleading because it did not disclose the fact that a three year commitment was required in order to receive six months of free home phone service. Decision: The advertiser claimed that the terms of Comwave’s advertised offer were disclosed in supers that appeared at several places in the commercial. Although the terms may have been included in the supers, Council, in evaluating the commercial, found the small type supers to be neither legible nor understandable. Council found that the advertisement contravened the Code because the footnoted information was not clearly visible or legible. Infraction: Clause 1(d). Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity Advertiser: Hudson’s Bay Company Industry: Retail (Supermarkets, Dept stores, etc.) Region: National 7 Ad Standards Media: Digital - Display ads Complaint(s): 1 Description: A “Buy 1 Get 2 Free” sale on luggage was advertised as being available both online and in-store. Complaint: The complainant alleged that the offer was not available to online purchasers. Decision: The advertiser explained that, for technical reasons,