Complaint: 12/451

Vodafone website

Details

Complainants
A. Chen
advertisers
Vodafone
Year
2012
Media
Digital Marketing
Product
Telecommunications
Clauses
Decision
No Grounds to Proceed
ASA Links
Website Listing
Decision Document

Document

COMPLAINT NUMBER
12/451
COMPLAINANT
A. Chen
ADVERTISER
Vodafone
ADVERTISEMENT
Vodafone website
DATE OF MEETING
18 September 2012
OUTCOME
No Grounds to Proceed



Complaint: The website advertisement http://www.vodafone.co.nz/home-phone/bestmate-for-home-phone/ that stated a 'BestMate' could be added for free with 'Choice' and Mega' home phone and broadband packages, or for $20 per month to other home phone and broadband packages such as 'Basic or 'Easy'. A 'BestMate' allowed the account holder unlimited calls to a nominated New Zealand mobile or landline numbers for up to two hours per call.

Complainant, A. Chen, said: that they considered the advertisement misleading as different plans offered by Vodafone in regard to the 'BestMate' options had different terms and conditions.

The relevant provisions were Basic Principle 4 and Rule 2 of the Code of Ethics.

The Acting Chairman noted that the Complainant was of the view that the advertisement was misleading in that the website displayed inconsistent terms surrounding the 'BestMate' promotion.

Turning to the advertisement and the website pages provided by the Complainant for comparison, the Acting Chairman noted that the packages listed in the two advertisements were different. The description of the package that includes calls to any New Zealand mobile or landline appeared with the 'Choice' and 'Mega' plans offered by Vodafone, whereas the package that the Complainant raised the issue with was the 'Talk 0' package. The Acting Chairman considered the descriptions of the packages, and the addition of 'BestMate' products to be clearly listed on the Vodafone website.

Therefore, the Acting Chairman said that as the products were clearly different, he ruled that the advertisement could not be considered to be misleading or likely to mislead the consumer. As such, there was no apparent breach of the Code of Ethics.

Accordingly, the Acting Chairman ruled that there were no grounds for the complaint to proceed.


Acting Chairman's Ruling: Complaint No Grounds to Proceed