In a recent ruling, the Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB) found that South Africa’s telecom giant MTN had misled consumers with its claim of offering "unlimited" calls and SMS on its SuperFlex plan, available for R299 per month.
The ruling followed a consumer complaint that challenged the veracity of MTN’s advertising, citing restrictions placed on the supposed “unlimited” package.
The complainant alleged that despite the promise of unlimited calls, MTN had disconnected their service before the end of the paid month, effectively accusing the telecom of false advertising. MTN, in response, defended the advertisement, pointing out that the offer was subject to an Acceptable Usage Policy (AUP), clearly stated in the package’s terms and conditions. According to MTN, the policy exists to curb excessive use and prevent network abuse, particularly for business or commercial purposes, which are explicitly prohibited under the plan.
A fine print defence
MTN explained that it relies on a proprietary algorithm to monitor usage patterns and flag customers whose behaviour breaches the acceptable usage policy. The company argued that the complainant’s usage, which reportedly deviated from standard personal use, triggered the algorithm, resulting in a series of SMS warnings and the eventual suspension of service. MTN’s defense rested on the fact that the terms and conditions, though not explicitly outlined in the advertisement, were accessible on their website and included safeguards for network quality and fair usage.
The case for 'unlimited'
The ARB however, scrutinised MTN's use of the word "unlimited." According to the ruling, "unlimited" has a clear and unequivocal meaning, generally implying no restrictions whatsoever. The board rejected MTN's argument that the inclusion of terms and conditions could redefine the meaning of the word. It emphasised that while business reasons for limiting calls and SMS are understandable, the use of "unlimited" in this context was misleading, as the service imposed conditions on its usage.
Referencing previous rulings on similar cases, the ARB pointed out that any limitations on an “unlimited” offer must be transparent and clearly communicated to consumers. In MTN’s case, not only was the word "unlimited" used without any qualifiers in the advertisement, but the actual terms were buried in fine print, accessible only via a separate link. The board found that this lack of clarity violated Clause 4.2.1 of Section II of the Code of Advertising Practice, which prohibits misleading claims.
As the telecom landscape evolves, the balance between offering competitive packages and maintaining transparency with consumers will likely remain a contentious issue. For now, consumers are advised to pay close attention to the fine print and challenge claims that seem too good to be true.
