ASA Adjudication on Domain Registry of America

Domain Registry of America t/a Domain Renewal Group

2316 Delaware Avenue #266
Buffalo
New York
14216-2687
U.S.A.

Date:

11 November 2009

Media:

Direct mail

Sector:

Business

Number of complaints:

3

Complaint Ref:

98219

Ad

A direct mailing, for website domain names, was headed “Domain Name Expiration Notice” Below, it stated “As a courtesy to domain name holders, we are sending you this notification of the domain name registration that is due to expire in the next few months. When you switch today to the Domain Renewal, you can take advantage of our best savings … You must renew your domain name to retain exclusive rights to it on the Web, and now is the time to transfer and renew your name from your current Registrar to the Domain Renewal Group … Domain name holders are not obligated to renew their domain name with their current Registrar or with the Domain Renewal Group. Review our prices and decide for yourself. You are under no obligation to pay the amounts stated below, unless you accept this offer. This notice is not a bill, it is rather an easy means of payment should you decide to switch your domain name registration to the Domain Renewal Group ... call our Customer Service Department, toll free, at +1 905 XXX.” The mailing listed three different renewal options and their prices and included a credit card payment slip to detach and return.

Issue

1. Three recipients believed the mailing was misleading because it appeared to be a bill requiring payment and implied they had transferred a domain name registration when they had not.

2. Two of the recipients also challenged whether the customer service number was misleadingly described as "toll free", because they understood it was an international number and would be chargeable.

CAP Code

Response

1. Domain Renewal Group (DRG) said their mailing was intended to notify recipients that their domain name was about to expire and, because of deregulation in the Domain Name industry, consumers had a choice of registrars with whom to renew or register a domain name.  They said their mailing did not claim that the recipient's domain name had been transferred to DRG or that payment was due without agreeing to move to their company.  They believed this was clear from the claims "Domain name holders are not obligated to renew their domain name with their current Registrar or with the Domain Renewal Group", "Review our prices and decide for yourself.  You are under no obligation to pay the amounts stated below, unless you accept this offer" and "This notice is not a bill, it is rather an easy means of payment should you decide to switch your domain name registration to the Domain Renewal Group".

2. DRG said the inclusion in the mailing of a toll-free customer service telephone number was an error, which had since been amended.

Assessment

1.  Upheld

The ASA noted the mailing was headed "Domain Name Expiration Notice" and closely resembled a bill, including a credit card payment slip, and considered recipients were likely to infer that their domain name had been transferred to DRG and a renewal payment was now required.  We noted the mailing stated "This notice is not a bill ...", "You are under no obligation to pay the amounts stated below ..." and "... now is the time to transfer and renew your name from your current Registrar to the Domain renewal Group ...", but did not consider it was sufficient to remove the overall impression that the mailing was a genuine bill requiring payment.  We concluded that the mailing was misleading for falsely implying that recipients had already transferred their domain name to DRG and for not making sufficiently clear that it was a marketing communication.

On this point, the mailing breached CAP Code clauses 6.1 (Honesty), 7.1 and 7.2 (Truthfulness), 22.1 (Recognising marketing communications) and 42.9 (Distance selling).

2.  Upheld

We noted the toll-free telephone number was included in the mailing in error, but nonetheless concluded that, because it was not possible to call the advertised customer service number for free at the time the mailing was sent out, it was likely to mislead recipients.   

On this point, the mailing breached CAP Code clauses 7.1 and 7.2 (Truthfulness).

Action

The mailing must not appear again in its current form.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)

Log a complaint

Find out what types of ads we deal with and how to make a complaint.

How to complain

Sign in here

View the full content of this site and to keep up-to-date with ASA news.

Sign in

Adjudications

View our latest weekly ASA adjudications or search for rulings from the last five years.

Adjudications

Enquiries

If you have a general query about the work of the ASA, please read our Frequently Asked Questions as you may find your answer in this section instantly.

FAQs

Key facts and figures

Read some of our key facts and figures.

Key facts and figures

Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP)

The advertising rules are written by the advertising industry through two Committees: the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) and the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice (BCAP).

CAP website

Copyright © 2009 ASA