ASA Adjudication on Vodafone Ltd

Ad

A poster for Vodafone showed someone leaning out of a window to get reception on their mobile phone. The ad stated “Only Vodafone can guarantee mobile signal in your home. Get Sure Signal at Vodafone.co.uk/suresignal”.

Issue

1. T-Mobile, O2 and two complainants objected that the ad was misleading because it did not make clear that broadband and a 3G handset were required to use Sure Signal;

2. T-Mobile, O2 and one complainant challenged whether the claim "can guarantee mobile signal" could be substantiated;

3. O2 and eight complainants challenged whether the ad was misleading because it implied Vodafone were superior to other networks and were capable of guaranteeing coverage to all customers and did not make clear a particular product was being promoted;

4. One complainant objected that the ad was misleading because the product was not available to people with cable broadband;

5. O2 and one complainant challenged whether the ad was misleading because it did not make clear that additional payment was required for the service;

6 O2 objected that the ad did not make clear that Sure Signal could only be used for up to four people at the same time; and

7. O2 challenged whether the claim "Only Vodafone can guarantee mobile signal in your home" was misleading because they believed that other providers offered femtocell and signal boosting technology.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. Vodafone said the ad included a sub-heading that directed customers to the Vodafone Sure Signal (VSS) section of their website, which stated that a broadband connection and 3G handset were required to use the service. Vodafone believed that customers had a limited time to read the poster so they ensured that all relevant information about the product was available on their website. Furthermore, Vodafone argued that a customer would be unable to gather sufficient information to purchase the product without visiting the website and becoming aware that a 3G handset and broadband connection would be required. Vodafone stated that their website also included a broadband checker to allow consumers to confirm that their home had sufficient broadband speed to maximise the use of VSS.

2. Vodafone explained that the ad did not make a superiority claim about the quality of the VSS service, but was rather claiming they could guarantee the availability of a network signal. Vodafone said they offered a no quibble money back guarantee if a customer did not receive a mobile signal using the VSS product. Vodafone accepted that the quality and availability of home broadband could vary and, whilst they recommended that customers had a broadband speed of 1Mbps, VSS would be capable of providing a signal at 64 Kbps. At 12 Kbps, VSS would be able to synchronise and begin transmitting a 3G signal to allow text messages to be sent; at 64 Kbps it could also support a single voice call. Vodafone relied on research by Alcatel Lucent which they believed showed that 64 Kbps would allow a consumer to make a phone call. Vodafone argued that, although the quality of the VSS product would vary depending on the quality and availability of an individuals broadband, VSS would enhance and guarantee a mobile signal, provided the customer had at least 64 Kbps broadband.

Vodafone said they had taken the issue of interference into account when making the guarantee claim. They said they tested the product to ensure it complied with 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) standards to ensure interference did not occur. Furthermore, Vodafone said it used spectrum frequency bands that were currently unused to ensure that other femtocell devices would not cause interference. Vodafone also said they conducted coverage tests which showed VSS had a range of 25 to 30 metres. They said VSS covered a radius of 491 square metres in typical environments with thick wall constructions, such as Victorian detached properties, and therefore believed that VSS was capable of providing a signal in a variety of house constructions.

Vodafone explained that, for the majority of consumers, VSS would operate with their broadband service. They sent us a letter from a company that conducted surveys on broadband speeds on a sample of customers in February and March 2010 which showed almost all customers achieved download and upload speeds of 64 Kbps. Vodafone said the study was based on broadband supplied to over 22 thousand households; to their knowledge, there had been no research conducted on the entire populations access to broadband and its speed. Because VSS operated with a broadband speed of 64 Kbps, Vodafone said that the use of other broadband intensive services, such as the iPlayer, meant that it would still be possible for the majority of customers to receive a signal at bandwidth intensive periods. Vodafone therefore believed that the guarantee claim was justified.

3. Vodafone explained that the ad specifically referred to mobile signal, not coverage. They said the headline claim was qualified by the claim "Get Sure Signal" and linked to their website that made the nature of the product clear. Vodafone said they capitalised the name "Sure Signal" to avoid any potential confusion and to make clear it referred to a specific product that Vodafone offered. Vodafone therefore did not believe the headline claim was misleading.

4. Vodafone confirmed that VSS was available to all customers irrespective of whether or not they had cable or ADSL broadband.

5. Vodafone said the ad merely highlighted that the VSS product was available and therefore argued that it was not a CAP Code requirement to include pricing information.

6. Vodafone confirmed that VSS could only be used by four people at any one time. They believed it was not a significant condition that warranted prominence in the ad itself, and explained that the limitation was made clear to consumers when they visited the website. Vodafone explained that the ad did not show more than four people using VSS so believed the ad did not mislead consumers about the products use.

7. Vodafone said they were the only operator in the UK to commercially launch femtocells as of February 2010. They explained that other products did not boost signal, but rather transferred calls from the mobile network to a consumers Wi-Fi, whereas VSS improved mobile signal.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA understood that a femtocell device was a wireless access point that allowed consumers to obtain a mobile signal on their 3G handset through their broadband connection where existing coverage was limited or unavailable. We acknowledged that both a 3G handset and a broadband connection were required to use the VSS device. Although we noted that the ad directed consumers to the Vodafone website where those requirements were stated, we considered they were significant conditions of the use of the VSS device and therefore warranted prominence in the body copy of the ad. We therefore considered that the omission of a statement that a 3G handset and broadband were required to use VSS was likely to mislead.

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

2. Upheld

We noted the VSS device would permit consumers to make a single voice call at a broadband speed of 64 Kbps. We understood Vodafones assertion that 64 Kbps was attainable by over 99% of the population in off-peak times, but noted that the survey sampled over 22,000 households and its conclusions did not necessarily indicate that over 99% of the entire UK population would have access to a broadband connection with a speed to allow a femtocell to operate. We acknowledged that the availability and quality of an individuals broadband connection, which were factors outside of Vodafones control, would affect a consumers ability to use the VSS device and considered, therefore, that Vodafone could not guarantee the service would be operational.

We noted Vodafones argument that the ad was not making claims about the quality, range or coverage of the VSS signal, but considered that readers were likely to infer from the claim "Only Vodafone can guarantee mobile signal in your home", in the context of a consumer struggling to obtain a signal, that Vodafone could guarantee to provide a signal to allow consumers to make and receive calls. We understood that a number of factors, such as the composition of a consumers home, distance from the device, other femtocell interference and internet firewalls, could affect the functioning of the VSS device and we had not seen evidence to demonstrate that Vodafone could guarantee a signal in all circumstances.

We considered that whilst Vodafone could claim VSS would provide a signal if a consumer had a functioning broadband connection of 64 Kbps and a 3G handset, because Vodafone did not control the availability and performance of the broadband connection, the claim to "guarantee" a signal was unsubstantiated and likely to mislead.

On this point the ad breached 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 and 7.2 (Truthfulness).

3. Upheld

We noted the capitalisation of "Sure Signal" in the ad, but considered that it was unlikely to be noticeable to consumers as an indication that a new product was being promoted. We considered that readers, who were unfamiliar with the VSS product or signal boosters per se, could infer from the ad that Vodafone were making a general superiority claim about their ability to provide a signal to all customers in comparison to other network providers. Because it was not clear that Vodafone were promoting a new product, we concluded that the ad was likely to mislead.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 7.1, 7.2 (Truthfulness) and 19.1 (Other comparisons).

4. Not upheld

We understood there was no technical reason why an individual with cable broadband could not use the VSS device. We noted Vodafones assurance that VSS was available to all customers with broadband, irrespective of whether they had cable broadband, and therefore concluded that the ad was unlikely to mislead on that point.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 and 7.2 (Truthfulness) but did not find it in breach.

5. Upheld

We acknowledged that the ad promoted the availability of the VSS product and understood there was no requirement in the CAP Code to indicate a price. However, because the ad did not make clear it was promoting a new product, we considered that readers could infer that the benefit of a "guaranteed" signal was an inclusive feature of the Vodafone network, available to all customers. Because that was not the case, we concluded the ad was likely to mislead.

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

6. Not upheld

We understood that VSS would operate with up to four users at any one time. However, we noted that the ad did not state or imply that VSS could function with multiple users or exaggerate its capabilities in that regard. We therefore concluded that, in the context of the ad, the omission of that fact was unlikely to mislead.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 7.1 and 7.2 (Truthfulness) but did not find it in breach.

7. Not upheld

We noted that no other femtocell service was commercially available in the UK. We acknowledged that other services could transfer calls through Wi-Fi connections, but did not enhance signal through 3G and 3G handsets as was the case with femtocell devices. Because VSS was the only commercially available femtocell device in the UK, we concluded the ad was unlikely to mislead on that point.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 and 7.2 (Truthfulness) but did not find it in breach.

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)