WIND’S “TUTTOINCLUSO” PLAN
PRESS RELEASE
PRESS RELEASE
ANTITRUST IMPOSES FIRST FINE FOR MISLEADING ADVERTISING IN MOBILE TELEPHONY:
WIND FINED 14,500 EUROS
Ten adverse findings already in this sector in 2005
The Italian Competition Authority, at its meeting on 16 November 2005, imposed a fine of 14,500 euros on Wind for an advertisement contained in leaflets distributed in May 2005 to publicize the economic advantages of their “Tuttoincluso” offer.
In reality, the conditions applied were different from those advertised with respect to the fixed monthly charge, the number of minutes of free conversation allowed for calls to mobile phones, and the fact that the conditions would no longer apply after a certain date, such time limit not being specified in the leaflet.
The sanction inflicted on Wind represents the first application in the mobile telephony sector of the powers provided under the Giulietti law, which is now part of the Consumer Code.
From the beginning of 2005, the Authority has now examined 15 cases of “doubtful” advertising in this sector, ten of which gave rise to findings of misleading advertising and two of illicit comparative advertising. Overall, the Authority, from 1996 to date, has judged 68 advertisements in the mobile telephony sector to be misleading. And at a time when there is a slight decrease in the total number of complaints about misleading advertising – from 982 in 1997 to 861 in 2004 – complaints in the mobile telephony sector have increased over the same period from 24 to 56, there having being 49 of them just in the first eight months of 2005. This, then, is a sector where there is a need for fairer dealing on the part of advertisers in promoting their services because they are involved in massive, aggressive advertising campaigns, often launched at holiday time.
Given the upcoming Christmas period, and judging by the cases examined in 2005, consumers should pay particular attention to four “risk factors” in advertisements for cellular plans.
FREE? CHECK IT OUT!
If the advertised prices include the word “free”, it is wise to check further. Often the term free in these advertisements means reimbursement by way of a bonus for telephone traffic already effected. In the Authority’s view, it is improper to use interchangeably the terms free and reimbursable because these cannot be considered equivalent. The term free means that there is nothing to pay for the service.
KEEP AN EYE ON ‘COVERAGE’
One must always check that the characteristics of the service offered and/or the conditions of its use correspond with the advertised claims. For example, in a case having to do with data transmission using UMTS technology, it turned out that the maximum transmission speeds could be reached only in theory because at the time the advertisement was published, territorial coverage had not yet been completed.
WATCH THE COSTS
One must carefully evaluate all the costs included in the advertised rates. In a few of the cases examined by the Authority, it emerged, for example, that the incomplete information provided prevented the consumer from properly understanding the characteristics of the offer and its limits, especially where there may be a significant “flag fall” charge when a call is answered. Then there is the category pushing latest-generation mobile phones at very low prices: once the phone has been purchased, the consumer finds himself locked into a medium/long-term contract with an obligatory minimum monthly expenditure.
LOW-COST DEALS, BUT FOR A LIMITED TIME
There are cases where the advertised rates seem extremely competitive but in reality apply only for an initial period which is not specified in the advertisement, or there is a fixed start-up charge for the plan which is not easily identifiable. In comparing different offers, then, one must check how long the “discounted” rates will apply and the size of any initial charge.
Rome, 26 November 2005