Ad Complaints Reports - Q4 2009
OverviewThe following are case summaries of consumers’ complaints about advertising that were upheld by National and Regional Consumer Response Councils (Councils) for the Q4 2009. Councils are composed of senior advertising industry and public representatives, who volunteer their time to adjudicate consumers’ 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 consumers’ complaints regarding advertisements that were found by Councils 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 In this section, the advertising in question was not withdrawn or amended before Council met to deliberate on the complaint.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 consumers’ complaints upheld by Councils 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, the Consumer Complaint Procedure, and previous Ad Complaint Reports select the following links:
 |
||
| Canadian Code of Advertising Standards | ||
|
|
||
| Consumer Complaint Procedure | ||
|
|
||
| Previous Ad Complaints Reports |
|
|
Identified Cases - Oct 1, 2009 - December 31, 2009
Canadian Code of Advertising Standards
|
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity |
|
|---|---|
| Advertiser: | National Collector's Mint |
| Industry: | Retail |
| Region: | Quebec |
| Media: | Television |
| Complaint: | 1 |
| Description: | The commercial offered a 9/11 Silver Leaf Coin Certificate commemorating the seventh anniversary of the World Trade Centre tragedy. In the commercial it was stated that the certificate was non-circulating authorized Liberian legal tender. Elsewhere, it was stated that the advertised certificate was « A piece of money in silver of $20 payable in coin of the realm. » |
| Complaint: | The complainant alleged that the commercial was designed to create confusion about the value of the advertised item. |
| Decision: | To Council, the commercial contained several claims that together conveyed the clear impression that the advertised item had a face value of 20 dollars and could be used in Canada as legal, negotiable currency - which was not the case. Council, therefore, concluded that the commercial made inaccurate representations about the value of the product and did not clearly and understandably state all pertinent details of the offer. |
| Infraction: | Clauses 1(a) and (c). |
| Advertiser's Verbatim Statement: | Here at the National Collector's Mint we value our customers, and in striving for 100% customer satisfaction, we consistently go to great lengths to ensure our promotions are clear and accurate. While we stand behind our offers and products, we do respect the concerns raised by the Advertising Standards Canada. Throughout the process we have cooperated with ASC by keeping a line of open communication, as well as making a number of significant amendments to our TV commercial to address the concerns raised by ASC's Consumer Response Council. |
|
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity |
|
|---|---|
| Advertiser: | Shaw Cablesystems G.P. |
| Industry: | Service |
| Region: | British Columbia |
| Media: | Flyers |
| Complaint: | 1 |
| Description: | In an advertisement for three telecommunications' services (phone, Internet and television) the advertiser claimed “Pick One or Pick Them All. All 3 for Under $45 per Month.” |
| Complaint: | The complainant stated that she had tried, but was unable, to subscribe to phone or Internet service without also subscribing to television service. |
| Decision: | The claim “Pick One or Pick Them All” clearly conveyed the message that a customer could subscribe to any one of the three indentified services, or to all of them. However, according to the evidence before Council it was necessary to subscribe to television service in order to receive any other service. Council, therefore, found that the advertisement conveyed an inaccurate impression about the availability of the advertised services. |
| Infraction: | Clause 1(a). |
|
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity |
|
|---|---|
| Advertiser: | Shaw Direct |
| Industry: | Service |
| Region: | British Columbia |
| Media: | Television |
| Complaint: | 1 |
| Description: | In a television commercial for a satellite television service the advertiser claimed there were “No Contracts”. |
| Complaint: | When the complainant attempted to cancel his subscription, he was told by the advertiser that under Shaw Direct’s terms and conditions of service, thirty days' notice was required to cancel. |
| Decision: | Council understood that the advertiser’s intention by this claim was to distinguish itself from its competitors. However, after reviewing the “Terms of Service – Residential Customer Agreement” on the advertiser’s website, Council was unable to conclude that the Agreement and the Terms of Service were anything other than a contract. To Council, the clear impression conveyed was that Shaw Direct’s service was cancellable at any time without notice. Because it was not, Council found the unqualified “No Contracts” claim to be inaccurate and misleading. |
| Infraction: | Clause 1(a). |
| Advertiser's Verbatim Statement: | “Any service offering to the public has associated with it terms of service, either express or implied, which govern the relationship between the service provider and the consumer. Such terms are not commonly understood to be a "Contract". The Code provides that "the focus is on the ... general impression conveyed by the advertisement". The “No Contracts” claim does not leave the average consumer with the general impression that there are no terms of service governing the relationship, such as a requirement on the part of the consumer to provide reasonable advance notice to deactivate the service. The general impression conveyed by the advertisement is that Shaw Direct does not commit the customer to receive its DTH satellite television service for a fixed term, a distinguishing feature compared to the one other DTH satellite television service provider that has “Term Contracts” over and above its terms of service.” |
|
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity Clause 5: Guarantees Clause 11: Superstition and Fears |
|
|---|---|
| Advertiser: | Peer Sayed Sahib |
| Industry: | Service |
| Region: | Ontario |
| Media: | Newspaper |
| Complaint: | 1 |
| Description: | An advertisement in a Punjabi language newspaper offered the advertiser’s services to remove, forever, all personal worries and problems, including problems relating to marriage, infertility, and business. The advertiser promised "100% Guaranteed Results" in "less than one-week". |
| Complaint: | That the advertisement played upon readers’ superstitions and fears. |
| Decision: | Although requested by Council to do so, the advertiser provided no response on the merits of the complaint. Because the advertisement failed to explain any details about the conditions and limitations applicable to the guarantee. Council concluded that the advertisement was misleading. Council also found that the advertisement exploited superstitions and played upon fears to mislead consumers. |
| Infraction: | Clauses 1, 5 and 11. |
Non-Identified Cases - Oct 1, 2009 - December 31, 2009
Canadian Code of Advertising Standards
|
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity |
|
|---|---|
| Advertiser: | Automobile Dealer Association |
| Industry: | Automotive |
| Region: | Western Canada |
| Media: | Newspaper |
| Complaint: | 1 |
| Description: | A certain model of a vehicle was advertised at a specified price |
| Complaint: | The advertised model was not available at any dealer. |
| Decision: | Although sufficient inventory may have been available at dealers when the advertisement was first prepared in August, when the advertisement was published in September, inventory was down to only two vehicles. In Council’s view, it was improper to advertise the vehicle unless a reasonable number were available at dealers at the advertised price. Council, therefore, found that the advertisement conveyed an inaccurate impression about the availability of the advertised vehicle. |
| Infraction: | Clause 1 (a). |
|
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity |
|
|---|---|
| Advertiser: | Automobile Dealer Association |
| Industry: | Automotive |
| Region: | Western Canada |
| Media: | Newspaper, Internet |
| Complaint: | 1 |
| Description: | A model of a line of vehicles was advertised at a specified price. |
| Complaint: | According to the complainant, the advertised model was not available for purchase from any dealer. |
| Decision: | Even though dealers may have experienced difficulty in locating inventory of the advertised model, the vehicle should not have been advertised to the public unless adequate inventory was readily available at the dealerships. Council concluded that the advertisement conveyed an inaccurate impression about the availability of the advertised vehicle. |
| Infraction: | Clause 1 (a). |
|
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity |
|
|---|---|
| Advertiser: | Financial Institution |
| Industry: | Finance |
| Region: | British Columbia |
| Media: | Radio |
| Complaint: | 1 |
| Description: | A personal loan was advertised at a rate of 3.25%. The fact that the loan was subject to terms and conditions was also mentioned in the advertising. |
| Complaint: | That the advertisement failed to disclose the fact that loan insurance must be purchased in order to obtain the advertised loan rate. |
| Decision: | Council was aware that the phrase “terms and conditions apply” has become a standard industry practice to alert consumers that there may be details applicable to an advertised offer that are not provided in the advertisement and that consumers should inquire about them. To Council, however, the fact that loan insurance was required in order to obtain the advertised rate was a very important condition that should have been clearly disclosed within the advertising itself. Because it was not, Council found that the advertising omitted relevant information and did not state all pertinent details of the offer in a clear and understandable manner. |
| Appeal: | The original decision of Council was confirmed at an appeal requested by the advertiser. |
| Infraction: | Clause 1 (c). |
|
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity |
|
|---|---|
| Advertiser: | Financial Services Provider |
| Industry: | Service |
| Region: | National |
| Media: | Internet |
| Complaint: | 1 |
| Description: | A financial package consisting of several components was advertised at $11.95 per month. |
| Complaint: | That the advertisement failed to disclose the fact that in order to obtain access more than once to one of the components, the payment of an additional fee was required. |
| Decision: | The advertising did not clearly communicate the important fact that users will be charged an additional fee each time they accessed a specific component of the financial package. Council, therefore, found that the advertising did not state all pertinent details of the offer in a clear and understandable manner. |
| Infraction: | Clause 1 (c). |
|
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity |
|
|---|---|
| Advertiser: | Service Provider |
| Industry: | Personal and Proprietary |
| Region: | Ontario |
| Media: | Radio |
| Complaint: | 1 |
| Description: | A program was advertised as being available for 9 weeks at $99.00. |
| Complaint: | That the advertisement failed to state the advertised rate was available only with a one-year purchase commitment. |
| Decision: | The advertisement did not state that a twelve-month commitment was required in order to obtain the $99.00 price. Council found, therefore, that the advertisement contained an inaccurate representation about the price of a service and did not clearly and understandably state all pertinent details of an offer. |
| Infraction: | Clauses 1 (a) and (e). |
|
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity |
|
|---|---|
| Advertiser: | Transportation Company |
| Industry: | Automotive |
| Region: | Ontario |
| Media: | Radio |
| Complaint: | 1 |
| Description: | The advertiser claimed it provided service to a destination that was close to the centre of a large urban centre. |
| Complaint: | The advertiser misrepresented the proximity to the urban centre. |
| Decision: | Council agreed with the complainant finding that the commercial contained an inaccurate claim about the advertised service. |
| Infraction: | Clause 1 (a). |
|
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity Clause 3: Price Claims |
|
|---|---|
| Advertiser: | Retailer |
| Industry: | Retail |
| Region: | National |
| Media: | Internet |
| Complaint: | 12 |
| Description: | An electronic product was offered at a very attractive price of $99.99. |
| Complaint: | The advertiser would not honour the price. |
| Decision: | According to the advertiser, the special $99.99 price was featured during a time-limited promotion. However, the special price mistakenly remained on the website after the promotion expired, thus enabling consumers to continue placing orders at the special promotional price. The advertiser corrected the error upon discovering it, but not before notices had already been mailed to customers confirming the retailer's acceptance of their orders. The advertiser subsequently sent cancellation notices to confirmed buyers, together with a coupon for 5% off their next purchase. Council found that the advertisement contained an inaccurate representation about the price and availability of a product. |
| Appeal: | At an appeal hearing requested by the advertiser, the original decision of Council was affirmed. |
| Infraction: | Clauses 1 (a) and 3(a). |
| Advertiser's Verbatim Statement: |
|
Clause 14: Unacceptable Depictions and Portrayals |
|
|---|---|
| Advertiser: | Service Provider |
| Industry: | Service |
| Region: | Quebec |
| Media: | Television |
| Complaint: | 2 |
| Description: | A man was shown attempting a simple home repair. His wife, who was not satisfied with the results, ridiculed him using condescending language and a sarcastic tone of voice. |
| Complaint: | That the commercial was sexist by depicting a man as incompetent. |
| Decision: | Council concluded that the depiction of the man and the manner in which his wife treated him in this commercial had the effect of demeaning men. Council also considered whether, but did not find that, the humour in the commercial negated the overall impression conveyed by the commercial. |
| Infraction: | Clause 14(c). |
