Ad Complaints Reports - Q4 2011
Overview
The following are case summaries of consumer complaints about advertising that were upheld by Standards Councils for the Q4 2011. 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 In this section, the advertising in question was not withdrawn or amended before Council met to deliberate on the complaint.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, the Consumer Complaint Procedure, and previous Ad Complaints Reports select the following links:
Identified Cases - Oct 1, 2011 - December 31, 2011
Canadian Code of Advertising Standards
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
7-Eleven Canada Inc. |
|
Industry: |
Retail |
|
Region: |
National |
|
Media: |
Internet |
|
Complaints: |
2 |
|
Description: |
An advertisement for a prepaid phone bundle stated that customers who signed up to purchase a bundle of three hundred minutes would receive two hundred airtime minutes without charge. |
|
Complaint: |
The complainants alleged it was misleading for the advertiser not to clarify that the two hundred “free” minutes were already included in the basic three hundred minutes. |
|
Decision: |
The advertiser acknowledged that the correct information had been inadvertently omitted from the advertiser’s webpage. Based on the facts, Council concluded that the original advertisement omitted relevant information. |
|
Infraction: |
Clauses 1(b) and (c). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Extreme Fitness |
|
Industry: |
Recreation and Entertainment |
|
Region: |
National |
|
Media: |
Internet |
|
Complaints: |
2 |
|
Description: |
Advertisements for club memberships read: “No Annual Contract. Only $6 per month. No extra fees. No excuses.” The words “Only $6 per month” were printed in very large, bold type. Language in a disclaimer at the bottom of the advertisement read: “$6 Per Month-No Long Term Obligation offer based on two month prepaid membership. No Obligation month to month membership available after the initial two months.” |
|
Complaint: |
The complainants alleged that the advertisement was misleading because they were required to sign a contract in order to get the six dollar rate for the first two months. |
|
Decision: |
The advertiser did not respond to Council’s request for comments on the merits of the complaints. To Council, the advertisement conveyed the general impression that consumers would not have to pay a membership fee of more than six dollars per month and that no annual contract was required. However, based on the experience of the consumers who complained, this appeared not to be the case. Council, therefore, found that the advertisement was misleading and did not state all pertinent details of the offer in a clear and understandable manner. Council also found that the disclaimer contradicted the main message of the advertisement. |
|
Infraction: |
Clauses 1(a), (c) and (d). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Shoppers Drug Mart |
|
Industry: |
Retail |
|
Region: |
National |
|
Media: |
Flyers |
|
Complaints: |
1 |
|
Description: |
A case of bottled water was advertised at a special low price. |
|
Complaint: |
The advertiser would not honour the advertised price. |
|
Decision: |
In its response to Council the advertiser acknowledged that although the supply of the advertised bottled water ran out before the sale ended, the complainant should have been offered his choice of either a raincheck or a make-good at the special price as advertised. However, staff at the store the complainant visited did not give the complainant either option. Council found, therefore, that the advertisement was inaccurate and omitted relevant information, i.e. that quantities were limited. |
|
Infraction: |
Clauses 1(a) and (b). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Stokes International |
|
Industry: |
Retail |
|
Region: |
National |
|
Media: |
Internet |
|
Complaints: |
1 |
|
Description: |
On its website, a uniform supplier claimed that it provided customized name bars. |
|
Complaint: |
The complainant alleged that advertiser could not fulfil his order for a customized name bar. |
|
Decision: |
Based on the available evidence, the option of customized font styles was not made available as advertised. Council, therefore, found that the advertisement contained a misleading claim regarding the availability of a product or service. |
|
Infraction: |
Clause 1(a). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Virgin Mobile |
|
Industry: |
Service |
|
Region: |
National |
|
Media: |
Internet |
|
Complaints: |
1 |
|
Description: |
On the advertiser’s website iPhones were advertised at “Only $99 with no term contracts.” On a separate page, the following price information for a particular iPhone was provided: “Virgin Mobile Supertab. 3 Yr. 30 Day. Retail Price: $659.99. On your Virgin Mobile Supertab: $560.00. Get it for only $99. Pay Now: $99.99.” |
|
Complaint: |
That the claim was misleading because the phone could not be purchased as advertised. |
|
Decision: |
The advertiser did not respond to Council’s request for comments on the merits of the complaint. Notwithstanding many attempts to try to understand the advertiser’s message found on its webpages, Council found the advertisement was incomprehensible. Council concluded, therefore, that the advertisement did not clearly and understandably state all pertinent details of the offer. |
|
Infraction: |
Clause 1(c). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
Clause 3: Price Claims
|
|
Advertiser: |
Shoppers Drug Mart |
|
Industry: |
Retail |
|
Region: |
National |
|
Media: |
Flyers |
|
Complaints: |
1 |
|
Description: |
An ointment was advertised in a flyer for $1.99. |
|
Complaint: |
The complainant alleged that the advertised price was inaccurate. |
|
Decision: |
The advertiser acknowledged that an inadvertent error had been made whereby the incorrect price of $1.99 was stated in the flyer when, in fact, the actual price was $32.99. The advertiser advised Council that although a correction notice was sent by Shoppers’ central office to its retail stores, the correction notice was not posted at the store visited by the consumer. Based on the facts, Council found that the advertisement contained an inaccurate price claim. |
|
Infraction: |
Clauses 1(a) and 3(a). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
Clause 11: Superstition and Fears
|
|
Advertiser: |
Toronto Cosmetic Clinic |
|
Industry: |
Service |
|
Region: |
Ontario |
|
Media: |
Radio |
|
Complaints: |
1 |
|
Description: |
In a radio commercial the advertiser promoted cosmetic surgery to enhance women’s “most private places” and claimed that this was “a problem that most women have but are too embarrassed to talk about.” |
|
Complaint: |
The complainant alleged that advertisement was misleading and also was an unhealthy message for young women. |
|
Decision: |
The advertiser did not respond to ASC’s several requests for the advertiser’s comments on the merits of the complaint. Council found that the claim this “is a problem most women have” could not be substantiated and was misleading. Council also found that the commercial played upon women’s fears of having an unattractive body. |
|
Infraction: |
Clause 1(a) and Clause 11. |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
Clause 14: Unacceptable Depictions and Portrayals
|
|
Advertiser: |
Institute for Canadian Values |
|
Industry: |
Not for profit |
|
Region: |
National |
|
Media: |
Television, Internet |
|
Complaints: |
12 |
|
Description: |
A television commercial featured a young girl who stated in voice over “Don’t confuse me. I am a girl. My teachers are leading me to question if I am a boy, or transgendered, or transsexual, or intersexed or two spirited.” Included in the commercial were excerpts, which, according to the advertiser, were from the Toronto District School Board’s curriculum. In a voice-over at the end of the commercial, viewers were invited to visit a website to sign a petition to stop corrupting children. |
|
Complaint: |
That the commercial misrepresented the Toronto District School Board’s curriculum and was demeaning to the gay, transgendered and lesbian communities |
|
Decision: |
Based on the general impression conveyed by the commercial, Council found the advertisement contained inaccurate and misleading representations regarding the Toronto District School Board’s curriculum. Council also found that the commercial was demeaning to and disparaging of identifiable persons or groups of persons, and in the result, undermined human dignity. |
|
Infraction: |
Clauses 1(a) and 14 (c) and (d). |
Clause 3: Price Claims
|
|
Advertiser: |
eBay Canada |
|
Industry: |
Retail |
|
Region: |
National |
|
Media: |
Internet |
|
Complaints: |
1 |
|
Description: |
Two different bracelets were advertised on the Big Deal section of the advertiser’s website at prices that represented savings of 84% and 88%, respectively. A statement at the end of the Big Deal section read: “We compared the selling price for the featured Big Deal item on eBay to the MSRP [Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price] for the item at retail. We then calculated the price difference to show savings percentage.” |
|
Complaint: |
The complainant alleged that the savings claims were exaggerated and could not be substantiated. |
|
Decision: |
In its response to Council, the advertiser explained that the MSRP is taken from the manufacturer’s website or from competitive retail sites. In some cases, the advertiser relies on the seller’s word to determine the appropriate MSRP. In Council’s opinion, the Big Deal advertisements conveyed the impression that the advertised products were ordinarily and regularly sold at the advertised MSRP and that buying the products at the prices advertised on eBay would generate a savings of the magnitude claimed in the advertisement. However, in this case, eBay could not substantiate that the MSRP claimed by the seller was the price at which the advertised products were ordinarily and regularly sold. Council, therefore, found that the savings claims could not be substantiated and represented unrealistic price comparisons. |
|
Infraction: |
Clause 3(a). |
Clause 14: Unacceptable Depictions and Portrayals
|
|
Advertiser: |
Fluid Hair Salon |
|
Industry: |
Service |
|
Region: |
Alberta |
|
Media: |
Internet |
|
Complaints: |
56 |
|
Description: |
An advertisement for a hair salon on the advertiser’s website depicted a well dressed woman with a black eye seated on a couch. Behind the couch stood a man holding a necklace. The headline read “Look good in all you do.” |
|
Complaint: |
That the advertisement condoned violence against women. |
|
Decision: |
In its response to Council, the advertiser stated that its advertisement was intended to portray women as strong individuals in the face of adversity, and to stimulate conversation within the Fluid Hair Salon community. To Council, the image of the woman with a black eye, together with words “Look good in all you do” conveyed the message that women should look good regardless of the physical abuse they may suffer. While Council accepted that it may not have been the advertiser’s intention to do so, to Council, the advertisement had the effect of trivializing violence against women. Council, therefore, found that the advertisement exhibited obvious indifference to unlawful behaviour and attitudes that offended standards of decency among a significant segment of the population. |
|
Infraction: |
Clauses 14 (b) and (d). |
Clause 14: Unacceptable Depictions and Portrayals
|
|
Advertiser: |
K-97 Classic Rock |
|
Industry: |
Media |
|
Region: |
National |
|
Media: |
Out-of-home |
|
Complaints: |
10 |
|
Description: |
A billboard advertisement for a radio morning show featured a close-up of a woman wearing a tight t-shirt. Printed across the chest of her t-shirt were the words “Pray For More Rain.” |
|
Complaint: |
That the advertisement demeaned women. |
|
Decision: |
Council found that focusing on a woman’s breasts in an advertisement for a radio morning show that had no connection to women’s sexuality was both gratuitous and objectified women. Council concluded, therefore, that this advertisement demeaned and denigrated women and encouraged, gratuitously and without merit, attitudes that offended standards of decency among a significant segment of the population. |
|
Infraction: |
Clauses 14 (c) and (d). |
Non-Identified Cases - Oct 1, 2011 - December 31, 2011
Canadian Code of Advertising Standards
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Consumer Product Manufacturer |
|
Industry: |
Retail |
|
Region: |
National |
|
Media: |
Television |
|
Complaint: |
1 |
|
Description: |
How a cosmetic product could perform was dramatically depicted in a commercial. |
|
Complaint: |
The complainant alleged that the depiction was highly exaggerated and the effects could not be duplicated by consumers using the product at home. |
|
Decision: |
The commercial contained supers stating that the depiction was dramatized and that the effects were enhanced in post-production. Council, nevertheless, found that the commercial exaggerated the effects that consumers could achieve by using the advertised product and concluded that the commercial made an inaccurate representation about the performance of the product.
The advertiser replaced the commercial before the complaint was adjudicated by Council.
|
|
Infraction: |
Clause 1(a). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Consumer Product Manufacturer |
|
Industry: |
Household |
|
Region: |
Quebec |
|
Media: |
Television |
|
Complaint: |
1 |
|
Description: |
In a province-wide television commercial, the advertiser advised viewers that they would be receiving a coupon for a free product. |
|
Complaint: |
The complainant alleged that he did not receive the coupon as promised in the commercial. |
|
Decision: |
The advertiser acknowledged that it had experienced problems with distribution and that, in fact, the coupon was not available in some areas of Quebec.
Based on the facts, Council concluded that the advertisement omitted relevant information and did not clearly and understandably state all pertinent details of the offer.
The advertiser is not-identified in this case summary because the advertisement was withdrawn before Council met to adjudicate the complaint.
|
|
Infraction: |
Clauses 1(b) and (c). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Household Product Manufacturer |
|
Industry: |
Retail |
|
Region: |
National |
|
Media: |
Internet |
|
Complaint: |
1 |
|
Description: |
An appliance was advertised as having alternative set-up and operating features. |
|
Complaint: |
The complainant alleged the advertisement failed to mention that unless an optional kit was purchased and installed, the optional operating features couldn’t function. |
|
Decision: |
To Council, it was important for potential purchasers to be clearly informed before they purchased the appliance that it was necessary to purchase a separate kit for anything other than the conventional set-up, and that the services of a technician might be required. By failing to disclose such important details in the original advertisement, Council concluded that it omitted relevant information.
Upon learning of the complaint, the advertiser corrected the advertisement before Council met to adjudicate the complaint.
|
|
Appeal: |
On an appeal by the advertiser, the Appeal Panel confirmed Council’s original decision. |
|
Infraction: |
Clauses 1(b) and (c). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Retailer |
|
Industry: |
Retail |
|
Region: |
British Columbia |
|
Media: |
Flyers |
|
Complaint: |
1 |
|
Description: |
A 750 gram package of cheese was advertised at a special price. |
|
Complaint: |
The complainant alleged that the advertisement overstated the weight of the cheese. |
|
Decision: |
In its response to Council, the advertiser explained that its cheese supplier had recently changed the size of the product, but that, inadvertently, this change had not been reflected in the advertisement. Appropriate corrective measures were taken by the advertiser prior to Council’s adjudication of the complaint. Based on the acknowledged facts, Council found that the original advertisement was inaccurate and omitted relevant information. |
|
Infraction: |
Clauses 1(a) and (c). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Retailer |
|
Industry: |
Retail |
|
Region: |
British Columbia |
|
Media: |
Internet |
|
Complaint: |
1 |
|
Description: |
A computer was advertised at a special price during a “Boxing Week Offer.” |
|
Complaint: |
According to the complainant, the computer was not available on Boxing Day at the store he visited |
|
Decision: |
The advertiser acknowledged that the start and end dates for the “Boxing Week” promotion had been inadvertently omitted from the advertisement. Based on the facts, Council concluded the advertisement contained an inaccurate claim and omitted relevant information.
The advertiser is not identified in this case summary because the error was corrected and the advertisement was withdrawn, before Council met to adjudicate the complaint. |
|
Infraction: |
Clauses 1(a) and (b). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Retailer |
|
Industry: |
Retail |
|
Region: |
National |
|
Media: |
Internet |
|
Complaint: |
1 |
|
Description: |
A retailer advertised a special price for a medical device and claimed that using the device was safe and promoted overall wellness. |
|
Complaint: |
The complainant alleged that the advertisement was misleading because the medical device had not been approved for the advertised procedure, as required by Health Canada. |
|
Decision: |
In a published statement on the device and procedure, Health Canada stated that there is no scientific proof to support claims that the device in question and procedure supports medical benefits. Furthermore, Health Canada reported that there is proof that the procedure is dangerous. On the basis of Health Canada’s declaration, Council found that this advertisement was misleading and that the claims could not be substantiated.
The advertiser is not identified in this case summary because the advertiser advised Council before it met to adjudicate the complaint that the claims would not be repeated in future advertising. Moreover, the advertiser voluntarily contacted each customer who purchased the service to inform them of Health Canada’s position on the matter.
|
|
Infraction: |
Clauses 1(a) and (e). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Retailer |
|
Industry: |
Retail |
|
Region: |
Ontario |
|
Media: |
POS |
|
Complaint: |
1 |
|
Description: |
A brand of ladies’ underwear was advertised in-store at 40% off. |
|
Complaint: |
The complainant alleged the advertisement was inaccurate because she could not purchase the underwear she believed was included in the special offer at a reduced price. |
|
Decision: |
In its response to Council, the advertiser agreed that the complainant should have been able to make her intended purchase at the reduced price and that the advertiser’s staff were informed and advised accordingly prior to Council’s adjudication of the complaint. Based on the acknowledged facts, Council found that the advertisement was inaccurate and omitted relevant information. |
|
Infraction: |
Clauses 1(a) and (c). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Retailer |
|
Industry: |
Retail |
|
Region: |
Quebec |
|
Media: |
Television |
|
Complaint: |
1 |
|
Description: |
In a television commercial, the advertiser promoted a discount of 30% to 70% off the price of all winter clothing |
|
Complaint: |
The advertiser would not honour the discount on the items the complainant wished to purchase |
|
Decision: |
The advertiser acknowledged that the discount applied only to specific brands, not to all winter clothing. Based on the acknowledged facts, Council concluded that the advertisement contained an inaccurate representation and did not clearly and understandably state all pertinent details of the advertised offer.
The advertiser is not-identified in this case summary because the advertisement was withdrawn before Council met to adjudicate the complaint.
|
|
Infraction: |
Clauses 1(a) and (c). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Service Provider |
|
Industry: |
Service |
|
Region: |
Ontario |
|
Media: |
Direct |
|
Complaint: |
1 |
|
Description: |
In a direct mail promotion, the advertiser offered to purchase customers’ used equipment for several thousand dollars. |
|
Complaint: |
The complainant alleged that the advertisement was misleading. |
|
Decision: |
To Council, the general impression conveyed by the advertisement was that the advertiser would purchase consumers’ used equipment. In fact, the offer to purchase consisted of a discount that would be applied by the advertiser to the purchase of new replacement equipment. In addition, the balance of the payment consisted of a government rebate for which consumers had to spend money in order to qualify. Council understood that details of the offer were included in a small-print disclaimer section of the advertisement. Council found, however, that the footnoted information contradicted the advertisement’s main message and, as a result, the advertisement was misleading.
The advertiser is not-identified in this case summary because the advertisement was withdrawn before Council met to adjudicate the complaint.
|
|
Infraction: |
Clauses 1(a) and (d). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Telecommunications Company |
|
Industry: |
Service |
|
Region: |
National |
|
Media: |
Internet |
|
Complaint: |
1 |
|
Description: |
Specific television channels were listed in an advertisement for a package of channels. |
|
Complaint: |
The complainant did not receive a particular channel he believed was included in the package he ordered. |
|
Decision: |
In its response to Council, the advertiser acknowledged that the complainant could have been confused by the advertisement and advised that appropriate corrective action was undertaken prior to Council’s adjudication of the complaint. Based on the acknowledged facts, Council found that the original advertisement did not clearly and understandably state all pertinent details of the offer. |
|
Infraction: |
Clause 1(c). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Telecommunications Service Provider |
|
Industry: |
Service |
|
Region: |
National |
|
Media: |
Direct |
|
Complaint: |
1 |
|
Description: |
In a prominent section on the front of a coupon, the advertiser offered a substantial discount on Internet service, claiming it represented a savings of over several hundred dollars. In a small print disclaimer on the reverse side of the coupon, the advertiser stated that the savings were based on subscribing to a specific, identified plan. |
|
Complaint: |
The complainant alleged that the savings claim was misleading because it applied only to those who subscribed to the second most expensive of several Internet packages offered by the advertiser. |
|
Decision: |
A symbol, which was printed in miniscule type immediately adjacent to the savings claim, directed readers to information regarding the savings calculation. Because the symbol was virtually impossible to see, Council found that the advertisement contained an inaccurate savings claim and did not state all the pertinent details of the offer in a clear and understandable manner. In addition, Council found that the footnoted information contradicted the main message of the advertisement.
The advertiser corrected the advertisement after the complaint was received by ASC and before it was considered by Council. |
|
Infraction: |
Clauses 1(a), (c) and (d). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Telecommunications Service Provider |
|
Industry: |
Service |
|
Region: |
National |
|
Media: |
Internet |
|
Complaint: |
1 |
|
Description: |
Various phones “from $0 with a 3 year term” were featured in an Internet advertisement for a cell phone package. |
|
Complaint: |
The complainant alleged that none of the featured phones could be purchased at $0. |
|
Decision: |
The advertiser confirmed to Council that the advertising in question had been replaced before Council met to adjudicate the complaint. After reviewing the applicable webpages and disclaimers several times, Council agreed with the complainant and found that the advertisement was confusing and did not clearly and understandably state all pertinent details of the offer. |
|
Infraction: |
Clause 1(c). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
|
|
Advertiser: |
Telecommunications Service Provider |
|
Industry: |
Service |
|
Region: |
National |
|
Media: |
Internet |
|
Complaint: |
1 |
|
Description: |
The advertiser claimed that its network covered a certain percentage of Canada. |
|
Complaint: |
The complainant alleged that the advertisement was inaccurate. |
|
Decision: |
In its response to Council, the advertiser agreed with the complainant that the advertisement appeared to incorrectly refer to geography, rather than to population. Upon learning of the error, the advertiser immediately corrected the advertisement. Based on the acknowledged facts, Council found that the claim was inaccurate. |
|
Infraction: |
Clause 1(a). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
Clause 3: Price Claims
|
|
Advertiser: |
Retailer |
|
Industry: |
Retail |
|
Region: |
National |
|
Media: |
Flyers |
|
Complaint: |
1 |
|
Description: |
A camera was advertised at a price that represented a savings of $150. |
|
Complaint: |
The complainant alleged that the savings claim was inaccurate. |
|
Decision: |
In its response to Council, the advertiser acknowledged that an error had been made in the savings claim stated in the advertisement. The advertisement should have read “Save $80” instead of “Save $150.” Based on the facts, Council found that the advertisement contained an inaccurate savings claim.
The advertiser is not identified in this case summary because, upon becoming aware of the error, the advertiser posted correction notices in its store as required under the Code.
|
|
Infraction: |
Clauses 1(a) and 3(a). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
Clause 3: Price Claims
|
|
Advertiser: |
Retailer |
|
Industry: |
Retail |
|
Region: |
National |
|
Media: |
Flyers |
|
Complaint: |
18 |
|
Description: |
A number of products were advertised at prices that the advertiser claimed were “the lowest prices of the year”. |
|
Complaint: |
The complainants alleged that the advertisement was inaccurate. |
|
Decision: |
In its response to Council, the advertiser acknowledged a mistake had been made in some of the prices quoted in a flyer as being the year’s lowest. In fact, the products identified by the complainants had been sold at lower prices earlier in the year. Based on the facts, Council found that the advertisement contained inaccurate price claims.
The advertiser is not identified in this case summary because, upon becoming aware of the error, the advertiser posted correction notices in its store as required under the Code.
|
|
Infraction: |
Clauses 1(a) and 3(a). |
Clause 1: Accuracy and Clarity
Clause 3: Price Claims
|
|
Advertiser: |
Retailer |
|
Industry: |
Retail |
|
Region: |
National |
|
Media: |
Internet |
|
Complaint: |
1 |
|
Description: |
A television was advertised at $399. |
|
Complaint: |
The complainant alleged that the advertiser would not honour the advertised price. |
|
Decision: |
The advertiser acknowledged that the price was mistakenly stated in the advertisement. The price should have been advertised as $467.99. Upon becoming aware of the error, the advertiser published a correction notice in the same online medium in which the original advertisement appeared. Based on the facts, Council found that the advertisement contained an inaccurate price claim. |
|
Infraction: |
Clauses 1(a) and 3(a). |
Clause 14: Unacceptable Depictions and Portrayals
|
|
Advertiser: |
Automobile Dealer |
|
Industry: |
Automotive |
|
Region: |
Alberta |
|
Media: |
POS |
|
Complaint: |
1 |
|
Description: |
An English-language advertisement was posted in a car dealership promoting a special pricing event exclusively for nationals of an identified foreign country. |
|
Complaint: |
The complainant alleged the advertisement was discriminatory to persons other than those identified in the advertisement. |
|
Decision: |
In its response to Council, the advertiser explained that the special price promotion was intended to thank the identified immigrant community for their support of the dealership. Although Council understood that it was not the advertiser’s intention to offend anyone, Council found that, by limiting the price offer in this way, the advertisement condoned discrimination based on national origin.
The advertiser is not identified in this case summary because the advertiser advised Council before it met to adjudicate the complaint that this one-time advertisement was withdrawn and would not be repeated.
|
|
Infraction: |
Clause 14 (a). |
