Cell C has been nabbed after representatives reportedly refused to offer an advertised contract

The Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB) ruled against Cell C in response to a complaint against a deceptive SIM-only month-to-month data and voice contract advertisement.

The ARB received the complaint when a potential consumer attempted to sign up for the R99 per month package and was told it was unavailable by in-store and contact centre workers.

The advertising, which is seen below, displayed three SIM-only data and voice options with monthly pricing ranging from R49 to R149.

“The complainant submitted that she wanted to sign up for the advertised data and voice month-to-month contract, SIM-only, R99 deal,” the ARB ruling reads.

“However, she was informed at one of the advertiser’s stores, and through a telephonic communication with an agent in the Advertiser’s upgrade department, that the advertised month-to-month deals were not available.”

Given the opportunity to respond, Cell C noted that it is not a member of the ARB and, therefore, did not submit a response to the complaint.

“The advertiser further added that it does not submit to the ARB’s authority and jurisdiction,” the ARB ruling reads.

As a consequence, the ARB ruled on the complaint for the benefit of its members based on the information presented by the complainant.

The complaint was reviewed by the regulator in light of the Code of Advertising Practice prohibitions on deceptive claims and non-availability of promoted items — clause 4.2.1 of section II and clause 16 of section III.

Section II clause 4.2.1 advises marketers against utilising advertising that contain any statement or visual representation that would likely mislead the customer, either directly or indirectly by omission, ambiguity, or overstated claim.

Clause 16 of Section II specifies that marketers shall not submit advertisements for publication unless they have reasonable grounds to believe they can meet the demand produced by the advertisement.

“In particular, no attempt should be made to use the advertising of unavailable or non-existent products as a means of assessing likely public demand,” the ARB said.

The commercial mentioned both Smartdata (data-only) and Pinnacle (data, minutes, and voice) offers.

The complainant, on the other hand, said she was advised that none of the advertised month-to-month rates were available.

The ARB acknowledged that the lack of availability of the deals may have a valid justification.

However, because Cell C did not answer, the ARB directorate stated that it was obliged to assume that Cell C is pushing contracts that are not available.

Based on the facts supplied to the ARB, it decided that the representations in the advertisement pertaining to both the Smartdata and Pinnacle transactions are deceptive, since “the promoted deals are ex facie unavailable”.

“Members of the ARB are advised not to accept any advertisement from the Advertiser bearing the above claims,” the ARB’s sanction against ARB reads.

Cell C’s chief legal officer, Zahir Williams, informed MyBroadband that the advertising will continue to broadcast, and that the bargains are still available online and in-store.

“In this instance, the customer did not contact Cell C or refer a complaint to ICASA. The complaint is not substantiated as Cell C currently retails the offer in question, which is available online and at select stores,” Williams said.

“Cell C is therefore not misleading any customer with this offer, which will continue to be advertised in store until 13 Feb.”

Williams pointed out that because Cell C is not a member of the ARB, it is not required to participate in its complaint processes.

“Customers with complaints are encouraged to engage with our customer care team and also have the option of lodging complaints with ICASA,” he added.