New Decisions: Warranty Claims, Sexual Health Products and More

The following decisions have been published:

Warranty claims unlikely to mislead consumers

Mitsubishi Motors’ website and Facebook advertisements said, in part: “10 year. 5 year. Diamond Advantage. New Zealand’s best new car warranty and customer care.” A complainant said the claim that Mitsubishi have “New Zealand’s best new car warranty” was misleading as it was not transferable after three years where other car brands offer five years.

In February 2018 the Complaints Board ruled the complaint was Upheld. The Advertiser appealed the Decision, claiming the Complaints Board incorrectly applied precedent Decisions, required a higher level of substantiation than it had previously and did not consider the warranty as a whole.

The Appeal Board was satisfied with the level of substantiation provided in the Advertiser’s appeal application and said the advertisement referred to the Diamond Advantage warranty as an overall package which had the most comprehensive cover for the longest period for new car buyers. The Appeal Board said there was sufficient information on the website to indicate to consumers the benefits and conditions of the warranty and the claims were unlikely to mislead the consumer.

Accordingly, the Appeal Board ruled the complaint was Not Upheld and the appeal was Allowed.

Viagra Ad Unlikely to Offend

The Family Health Diary television advertisement for Pfizer New Zealand Limited showed a man fixing a motorbike while discussing Viagra and says, in part: “You know why men take Viagra?  Taken as a treatment it’s got an awesome history of helping men.  It’s definitely reassuring, after all it is Viagra .”

The Complainant said advertising a product used for sexual activity is not appropriate on national television. They said the advertisement was highly offensive, especially during hours which are considered ’family time.’

The Chair noted the advertisement had been given a GXC (General Except Children) rating by the Commercial Approvals Bureau and the advertisement had played at 7:40pm within the constraints of its afforded rating.

While acknowledging the offence caused to the Complainant, the Chair said the absence of any specific product detail in the advertisement meant it was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence to most people. Accordingly, the Chair ruled there were no grounds for the complaint to proceed.