Back to the archive

The encyclopedia · Advertising & PR · Marketing decision · 2016

Comwave sold 'unlimited' internet with a cap — and prices full of fees — $300K

Sept 2016: Toronto's Comwave paid $360K — 'unlimited' services had monthly caps, and advertised prices needed non-optional fees to be real.

Comwave Networks Inc. · 2016-09

What happened

Comwave Networks, a Toronto internet and home-phone provider, advertised its services as unlimited and at attractive prices. The Bureau found both claims false or misleading: the 'unlimited' services carried monthly usage caps, and the advertised prices were not attainable because non-optional fees were added on top. Fine-print disclaimers and call-centre scripts did not save the ads — the Bureau ruled them insufficient to keep the headline claims from misleading.

On 13 September 2016 Comwave signed a consent agreement: a $300,000 penalty plus $60,000 toward the Bureau's costs, corrected advertisements that accurately explain the services and their costs, and a corporate compliance program.

Senior Deputy Commissioner Matthew Boswell's standard applied to the smallest carrier as to the largest: consumers shopping for telecom services deserve clear and accurate information. The case landed in the same year the Bureau was disciplining drip pricing in car rentals — 'unlimited with a cap' and 'price plus non-optional fees' are the same deception in different words.

Why it happened

  • 'Unlimited' with a monthly cap is a contradiction, and the cap made the headline claim false.
  • Non-optional fees turned every advertised price into a number no one would pay.
  • Fine print cannot contradict the headline: the Bureau treated the disclaimer as part of the deception, not a cure.
What it cost$300K penalty + $60K costscostly

The lesson

'Unlimited' means without a cap and the advertised price means the payable price: a fine-print disclaimer that contradicts the headline does not cure the claim, it completes it.

Aftermath

Comwave corrected its advertisements and established a compliance program under the consent agreement. The case remains the Bureau's reference for unlimited-usage claims in telecom advertising.

Sources

spotted an error? The club wants to know.

Comments · 0

    Sign in to join the comments.

    More like this

    Somewhere, someone solved the problem this company failed at. 2nd Opinion →