In order to compete with the new wireless providers of Wind Mobile, Mobilicity, and Public Mobile, Rogers launched its third wireless network under Chatr in 2010.
Upon Rogers’ release of Chatr, it began an advertisement campaign to distinguish it from the others by claiming “fewer dropped calls than new wireless carriers.”http://forums.canadiancontent.net/#_edn1 In response, Wind Mobile “filed a complaint with…[Canada’s Competition] bureau…over Rogers’ advertising campaign”[ii] in September 2010, stating “there is no way Rogers would have access to its technical network data”,[iii] which prompted the bureau to perform a two-month inquiry into the matter.
The Competition Bureau “concluded there is no discernible difference in dropped call rates between Rogers’ Chatr service and new entrants”[iv] and that such a claim “is misleading advertising of Rogers' Chatr discount cell phone and text service.”[v] Negotiations were attempted by the bureau to settle the dispute, but Rogers was unwilling to address the issue. As a result, the bureau “began legal proceedings against Rogers in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice under the misleading advertising provisions of the Competition Act.”[vi] The case is expected to begin in mid 2012.
Facts of the case will not be dissected until the Competition Act’s constitutionality is debated, for Rogers argues that the penalty amount of $10 million for first offences and $15 million for subsequent transgressions for false or misleading claims is criminal in nature. That is, Rogers disagrees with a civil penalty that is so high because civil penalties, unlike criminal fines, deny those accused of “procedural and other safeguards of the criminal law process guaranteed by section 11 of the Charter [of Rights and Freedoms].”[vii]
The safeguards include: “presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial and to make full answer and defence, and the privilege against testimonial compulsion.”[viii]
Rogers also argues the Competition Act violates its freedom of expression under the Charter by requiring “a company to have ‘adequate and proper’ tests of a product's performance before advertising claims about the product”[ix] can be made, which is to say, Rogers wants “to put all the risk that they are wrong on the consumer rather than them”,[x] says Michael Janigan, a consumer advocate of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre.
The Charter disallows companies from knowingly making false and misleading claims, but Rogers wants protection from making statements that are not known or cannot be known to be false; that innocence should be presumed regardless of claims made on data to which they do not have access. For example, information on Wind Mobile, Mobilicity, and Public Mobile’s dropped call data.
The law needs to protect consumers by ensuring they are provided accurate and fair information to make informed decisions in the marketplace. Proclamations of service performance are presented as facts and should, therefore, be based on it as well. It’s a matter of educating VS convincing, misleading. Consumers have the right to choose products based on empirically supported claims.
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/#_ednref1 theglobeandmail.com
Published Friday, Nov. 19, 2010
Last Updated Tuesday, Jun. 28, 2011
‘Misleading’ wireless ads put Rogers in hot water - The Globe and Mail
[ii] cbc.ca
Last updated: Friday, November 19, 2010
Rogers faces $10M fine over dropped-call ads - Business - CBC News
[iii] theglobeandmail.com
Published Friday, Nov. 19, 2010
Last Updated Tuesday, Jun. 28, 2011
‘Misleading’ wireless ads put Rogers in hot water - The Globe and Mail
[iv] cbc.ca
Last updated: Friday, November 19, 2010
Rogers faces $10M fine over dropped-call ads - Business - CBC News
[v] gc.ca
Date Modified: Oct 24, 2011
Competition Bureau Takes Action Against Rogers Over Misleading Advertising - Competition Bureau
[vi] cbc.ca
Last updated: Friday, November 19, 2010
Rogers faces $10M fine over dropped-call ads - Business - CBC News
[vii] vancouversun.com
Posted: Jan 27, 2012
Rogers uses charter claim to fight truth-in-advertising law
[viii] vancouversun.com
Posted: Jan 27, 2012
Rogers uses charter claim to fight truth-in-advertising law
[ix] vancouversun.com
Posted: Jan 27, 2012
Rogers uses charter claim to fight truth-in-advertising law
[x] vancouversun.com
Posted: Jan 27, 2012
Rogers uses charter claim to fight truth-in-advertising law
Upon Rogers’ release of Chatr, it began an advertisement campaign to distinguish it from the others by claiming “fewer dropped calls than new wireless carriers.”http://forums.canadiancontent.net/#_edn1 In response, Wind Mobile “filed a complaint with…[Canada’s Competition] bureau…over Rogers’ advertising campaign”[ii] in September 2010, stating “there is no way Rogers would have access to its technical network data”,[iii] which prompted the bureau to perform a two-month inquiry into the matter.
The Competition Bureau “concluded there is no discernible difference in dropped call rates between Rogers’ Chatr service and new entrants”[iv] and that such a claim “is misleading advertising of Rogers' Chatr discount cell phone and text service.”[v] Negotiations were attempted by the bureau to settle the dispute, but Rogers was unwilling to address the issue. As a result, the bureau “began legal proceedings against Rogers in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice under the misleading advertising provisions of the Competition Act.”[vi] The case is expected to begin in mid 2012.
Facts of the case will not be dissected until the Competition Act’s constitutionality is debated, for Rogers argues that the penalty amount of $10 million for first offences and $15 million for subsequent transgressions for false or misleading claims is criminal in nature. That is, Rogers disagrees with a civil penalty that is so high because civil penalties, unlike criminal fines, deny those accused of “procedural and other safeguards of the criminal law process guaranteed by section 11 of the Charter [of Rights and Freedoms].”[vii]
The safeguards include: “presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial and to make full answer and defence, and the privilege against testimonial compulsion.”[viii]
Rogers also argues the Competition Act violates its freedom of expression under the Charter by requiring “a company to have ‘adequate and proper’ tests of a product's performance before advertising claims about the product”[ix] can be made, which is to say, Rogers wants “to put all the risk that they are wrong on the consumer rather than them”,[x] says Michael Janigan, a consumer advocate of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre.
The Charter disallows companies from knowingly making false and misleading claims, but Rogers wants protection from making statements that are not known or cannot be known to be false; that innocence should be presumed regardless of claims made on data to which they do not have access. For example, information on Wind Mobile, Mobilicity, and Public Mobile’s dropped call data.
The law needs to protect consumers by ensuring they are provided accurate and fair information to make informed decisions in the marketplace. Proclamations of service performance are presented as facts and should, therefore, be based on it as well. It’s a matter of educating VS convincing, misleading. Consumers have the right to choose products based on empirically supported claims.
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/#_ednref1 theglobeandmail.com
Published Friday, Nov. 19, 2010
Last Updated Tuesday, Jun. 28, 2011
‘Misleading’ wireless ads put Rogers in hot water - The Globe and Mail
[ii] cbc.ca
Last updated: Friday, November 19, 2010
Rogers faces $10M fine over dropped-call ads - Business - CBC News
[iii] theglobeandmail.com
Published Friday, Nov. 19, 2010
Last Updated Tuesday, Jun. 28, 2011
‘Misleading’ wireless ads put Rogers in hot water - The Globe and Mail
[iv] cbc.ca
Last updated: Friday, November 19, 2010
Rogers faces $10M fine over dropped-call ads - Business - CBC News
[v] gc.ca
Date Modified: Oct 24, 2011
Competition Bureau Takes Action Against Rogers Over Misleading Advertising - Competition Bureau
[vi] cbc.ca
Last updated: Friday, November 19, 2010
Rogers faces $10M fine over dropped-call ads - Business - CBC News
[vii] vancouversun.com
Posted: Jan 27, 2012
Rogers uses charter claim to fight truth-in-advertising law
[viii] vancouversun.com
Posted: Jan 27, 2012
Rogers uses charter claim to fight truth-in-advertising law
[ix] vancouversun.com
Posted: Jan 27, 2012
Rogers uses charter claim to fight truth-in-advertising law
[x] vancouversun.com
Posted: Jan 27, 2012
Rogers uses charter claim to fight truth-in-advertising law
