The encyclopedia · Advertising & PR · Marketing decision · 2025
Mavumo's suit didn't match its photo, and returns went to China — neither was disclosed
A Dutch-looking online clothing shop sold a suit that didn't match the product photo, and returns shipped to China. The RCC called both omissions misleading.
Mavumo · 2025-03-31
What happened
Mavumo's website sold a 'Heren Vintage Retro 3-delig Pak – Odell' (men's vintage retro three-piece suit), shown as a brown suit on the product page. The customer said the delivered product looked nothing like the photo.
The complainant also found the Dutch address on the website was not the seller's real address — returns had to be sent to an address in China, with the return costs on the customer. That was not disclosed at purchase, only afterwards via the return form and a shipping-costs screenshot.
Mavumo acknowledged the problems, said it was working to resolve the matter, and noted a partial refund had already been processed. It pointed to the returns and exchanges details in its general terms and conditions.
The RCC chairman ruled the advertising breached Article 7 of the Dutch Advertising Code. Presenting the product with an image that did not correspond to what the customer received breached Article 8.2(b) (misleading on the principal characteristics), and hiding that returns went to China breached Article 8.3(c) (omission of essential information) — the return destination and cost are essential facts a consumer needs before buying, not buried in the terms.
Why it happened
- A product photo is a promise of what arrives — when the delivery doesn't match, the ad misled the whole transaction
- A Dutch-facing site with a Dutch address led the customer to expect local returns, when the real destination was China at the customer's cost
- Burying the return address in general terms instead of the ad is exactly the omission the rules exist to catch
The lesson
A product image is a claim about delivery, and a foreign return address is essential information. Both belong where the purchase happens — not in the fine print a buyer reads after the fact.
Aftermath
The RCC chairman found Mavumo in breach of Article 7 NRC for presenting a tweed suit with a product image that did not correspond to the delivered item (Article 8.2(b)) and for omitting the essential information that returns had to be sent to an address in China at the customer's expense (Article 8.3(c)). Because the website presented a Dutch address and a Dutch establishment, the buyer could reasonably assume a Dutch return point. The chairman instructed the advertiser not to advertise in such a manner again.
Sources
spotted an error? The club wants to know.
More like this
Temu's 'up to 95% off' was built on crossed-out prices that never were
Allegro's price guarantee looked absolute — its limits stayed hidden
Prodamp's SEO articles were ads — and Denmark bans ALL e-cigarette advertising
Somewhere, someone solved the problem this company failed at. 2nd Opinion →
Comments · 0
Sign in to join the comments.