Complaint: 14/138

Vodafone VDSL

Details

Complainants
D. Davies
advertisers
Vodafone
Year
2014
Media
Digital Marketing
Product
Telecommunications
Clauses
Decision
No Grounds to Proceed
ASA Links
Website Listing
Decision Document

Document

COMPLAINT NUMBER
14/138
COMPLAINANT
D. Davies
ADVERTISER
Vodafone
ADVERTISEMENT
Vodafone VDSL
DATE OF MEETING
28 March 2014
OUTCOME
No Grounds to Proceed



Complaint: The Vodafone website http://www.vodafone.co.nz advertised "VDSL speed at Broadband Prices." The website said, in part:

"Go 3x Faster for free. 80GB + home phone for $85 per month for the first 12 months."

The small print under the advertising banner said: "12 month term applies. Get VDSL speeds at standard ADSL prices for the first 12 months. Speeds are 3x faster than standards average ADSL speeds. VDSL is not available everywhere."

The Complainant, D. Davies, said: the advertisement said "get VDSL for free, in big letters... for customers that switch to Vodafone this is true but for existing customers, it is not true."

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

The Chairman noted the concerns of the Complainant that the advertisement was misleading because it advertised "free VDSL," but the deal was only available to new customers and not existing customers.

On reviewing a copy of the advertisement, the Chairman disagreed, she said it clearly stated in the "important things to know" link, directly under the deal that "If you are a new Vodafone broadband customer the offer includes a free VDSL wireless modem and free standard VDSL connection and wiring." She further noted where the conditions said "if you are an existing Vodafone ADSL broadband customer who upgrades to VDSL the offer includes a free standard VDSL connection and wiring. A VDSL modem cost of $99.05 applies."

The Chairman said the conditions for existing customers were clear and while there was a discounted charge for the VDSL modem, existing customers were still able to get the "3x faster for free" deal for the advertised $85 per month.

Therefore the Chairman said the advertisement was unlikely to mislead or consumers and was not in breach of Rule 2 or Basic Principle 4 of the Advertising Codes. She said there was no apparent breach of the Advertising Codes.
Accordingly, the Chairman ruled there were no grounds for the complaint to proceed.

Chairman's Ruling: Complaint No Grounds to Proceed.