MTN submitted that the advertising clearly offers 300GB of data at its best effort 5G speeds.
The Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB) has dismissed a complaint claiming that MTN’s 600GB advertisement is misleading.
This, after a complainant submitted to the ARB that the advertising promises a total of 600GB of data (300GB at “best 5G” speeds and another 300GB at 20Mbps), but in reality, it starts throttling use after 300GB.
According to the complainant, throttled speeds are 512Kbps, which is so slow that the internet becomes unusable.
“In reality, the advertising offers uncapped data, but users only get 300GB. This is false advertising used to lock customers into a 24-month contract,” said the complainant.
The ARB notes that the complainant later clarified that he/she decided not to take up this offer based on the fact that it advertises 600GB, but starts throttling users after 300GB per its fair use policy (FUP).
MTN submitted that the advertising clearly offers 300GB of data at its best effort 5G speeds, after which, it offers 300GB of data at 20Mbps download speeds.
“Only after a total of 600GB of data has been used, is the internet connectivity throttled to 512Kbps, as is stated in the advertising and in the terms and conditions to which any customer must agree when signing up for this product,” the telco argued.
It also pointed out that the advertising and contract terms and conditions make it clear that this is a “month-to-month” service.
“At no point is a customer locked into a 24-month contract as alleged by the complainant. Any customer is able to cancel the service for the following month, provided that he or she returns the free-to-use 5G router provided by the advertiser,” MTN added.
In making its decision, the ARB says its directorate considered Clause 4.2.1 of Section II of the Code (misleading claims) to be relevant to this dispute.
It explains that Clause 4.2.1 of Section II stipulates that advertising should not mislead people by means of ambiguity, omission, exaggeration, inaccuracy or in other ways.
“At the outset, it should be noted that the advertising does not appear to offer ‘uncapped’ data as submitted by the complainant. The screenshot provided by the complainant does not actually include the word ‘uncapped’. This portion of the complaint is, therefore, not relevant to the decision,” says the regulator.
“Similarly, the complainant incorrectly submitted that the advertised offer locks customers into a 24-month contract. The advertisement pertinently states that this product costs R399 on a ‘month-to-month’ basis,” it adds.
The ARB points out that MTN also confirmed that this was the case, and that customers are free to cancel the service at any time, provided they return the “free-to-use” router included in the offer.
Dealing with the data allocation portion of the complaint, it would appear the complainant’s confusion arises from the statements: “300GB fair use policy applies”, “thereafter speed is reduced to 512Kbps,” the board notes.
It says the complainant interpreted this to mean that the product offering only includes 300GB data, and not a total of 600GB as stated.
MTN denied this too, and noted the promotion offers 300GB at 5G speeds, where after it provides an additional 300GB at 20Mbps download speeds, and only after this does it throttle speeds to 512Kbps. It noted that this is also stipulated in the terms and conditions.
“This would suggest that the complainant simply misunderstood the advertisement. It appears from the submissions before the directorate that the advertiser offers (and provides) a total of 600GB. Users initially receive 300GB of data at 5G speeds, followed by 300GB of data at 20Mbps speeds. After a total of 600GB of data has been depleted, the connection speed is reduced as per the information provided in the advertisement,” the ARB says.
“It is acknowledged that the communication around this could be clearer, and that the directorate initially interpreted the advertising to be contradictory, as the claims appeared to be mutually exclusive. Because the advertisement breaks down the product into 300GB increments, when the advertisement then refers to the FUP applying to another 300GB it may cause confusion which 300GB increment is being referred to.”
The board notes that a simple clarification that the FUP applies after the 600GB has been used would go a long way to remove any confusion.
However, it notes, it would appear that while the claims are not optimally drafted, they are also not misleading.
“Accordingly, the fundamental basis on which the complainant raised his objection appears to be based on a flawed understanding of the offer. As such, the advertising cannot be said to be misleading for the reasons advanced by the complainant, and is not in breach of Clause 4.1.2 of Section II,” it concludes.
