Cookies policy statement
We are using cookies on our site to provide you with the best user experience.
Disabling cookies may prevent our website from working efficiently. Click ok to remove this message (we will remember your choice).
OK

ASA Ruling on Finarea SA

Finarea SA t/a Telediscount

PO Box 5648
Lugano
Switzerland
6901

Date:

11 January 2017

Media:

Internet (on own site)

Sector:

Computers and telecommunications

Number of complaints:

1

Agency:

None

Complaint Ref:

A16-356937

Ad

The home page of www.telediscount.co.uk, an international access number service, featured a box allowing viewers to look up charges per minute to different countries. For calls to Israel, it stated “To landlines 1 pence per minute”.

Issue

The complainant challenged whether the tariff was misleading because it did not make clear that callers would be charged additional costs by their telephone service provider.

CAP Code (Edition 12)

Response

Finarea SA said that the cost for calling an access number was divided into two parts: the service charge set by the organisation the customer was calling (in this case 1p per minute); and the access charge received by the phone company. They said that to avoid confusion, they featured additional information on their website stating “Your mobile phone provider may charge additional costs for calls to access numbers”. At the beginning of each call, customers would also receive a message stating “Call charges are [x]p per minute, plus network extras”. Finarea believed that this made the existence of additional network charges sufficiently clear to consumers.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA noted that the rate calculator in the top right-hand corner of the web page presented a rate of 1p per minute for calls to Israel. In the absence of sufficient qualification, we considered that consumers would understand this to mean that 1p per minute was the full rate that they would pay for calls to Israel. However, we understood that consumers would incur additional access charges from their network provider. Although the specific charge would depend on the individual customer’s service provider, we considered that the fact that additional charges applied was significant information that needed to be made clear to viewers of the website. We acknowledged that text further down the page stated “Your mobile phone provider may charge additional costs for calls to access numbers”. However, we noted that there was no indication within the rate calculator that this qualification applied to the pence per minute claim, and considered that the qualification was not sufficiently prominent in relation to the claim it qualified. Furthermore, the qualification only mentioned mobile providers, and did not make clear that access charges would also apply when calling from a landline. We concluded that the ad had not made sufficiently clear that network call charges would apply on top of the service charge and that it was therefore misleading.

The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1, 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.9, 3.10 (Qualification), 3.17 and 3.19 (Prices).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Finarea SA to ensure that stated service charges were accompanied by sufficiently prominent qualification that made clear that consumers would also pay an access charge to their mobile or landline network provider.

How to comply with the rules

For advice and training on the Advertising Codes please visit the CAP website.

Latest tweets

Make a complaint

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

Press Zone

This section is for journalists only. Here you will be able to access embargoed material, breaking news and briefing papers as well as profile details for the ASA press office.