JAMAICANS are largely dissatisfied with the truthfulness of some of the advertisements of companies within the telecommunications sector, according to data from the Fair Trading Commission (FTC).

In a 2010 economic and social survey, conducted by the Planning Institute of Jamaica (PIOJ), the telecommunications sector accounted for 110 of the 219 cases of misleading advertisements reported to the FTC last year. Additionally, the study found that of the 419 cases investigated across all possible breaches reported to the FTC, 159 were related to the telecommunications sector, of which 93 cases were resolved.

“The FTC has received numerous complaints against various telecommunications service providers. Most of these complaints arise from the failure of providers to give the public adequate notice of changes in the terms and conditions of existing services or promotional offers,” the competition and consumer protection organisation reported last year. The FTC stated that while it encourages innovation in a competitive environment, where unambiguous information is not communicated to the public, there could be a case of misleading advertisement, whether intended or unintended.

During 2010, the FTC was led to intervene by, among other things, issuing guidelines to the telecommunications providers regarding giving advance notice of changes in their policies, promotions and/or terms and conditions to customers, resolve disputes related to credit validity periods, and order entities to desist from using the word ‘unlimited’ in reference to plans which are effectively not ‘unlimited’.

“In light of the growing number of complaints, the FTC has formulated a set of general guidelines for providers which alter existing service offerings in a manner which is likely to affect consumers adversely,” the FTC said.

In October last year, Claro re-adjusted its credit validity period after complaints to the FTC mounted when the validity period for $100 credit was reduced from 30 days to seven days. Following meetings with the FTC, Claro reverted to the original validity period of 30 days and in some cases offered a longer period. According to the FTC, the company also committed to giving each of its customers $100 in bonus credit each month for a year.

Also in October, an investigation was launched into LIME’s ‘Digi-Switch’ promotion after persons signed up for the promotion that indicated that they would receive 1,000 minutes free per month to call LIME mobile and landline numbers only to find that free calls only applied to LIME mobile numbers. The FTC said it launched the investigation after customer complaints “raised issues that could constitute the offence of misleading advertising in breach of Section 37 of the Fair Competition Act (FCA).” Information on the resolution of that issue was not made available up to press time.

And in July 2010, the FTC was led to limit the use of the term ‘unlimited’ by all the telecoms providers as customers complained about being enticed by advertisements to participate in plans that are dubbed as ‘unlimited’ believing that ‘unlimited’ represented its ordinary and usual meaning- ‘without limit’ or ‘unrestricted’. According to the FTC, the consumer buys the plan, only to discover that there is a cap or ceiling. Examples provided by the FTC on its website include the VIP Talk Unlimited Plan previously offered by Digicel and the Anyone World Plan previously offered by Cable and Wireless, now LIME.

“Based on the number and frequency of these complaints, effective July 12, 2010, all providers are advised that the word ‘unlimited’ must be given its ordinary meaning only, in all representations made to members of the public. Plans which are qualified in any way, or to which conditions attach, should not be referred to as unlimited,” the FTC outlined.

Digicel told Sunday Finance that the results of the survey do not characterise the operations of the company.

“Over the last 10 years, Digicel has only ever received a small handful of complaints with regard to its advertising,” the company said in a written response to queries on Friday. “We pride ourselves on successfully communicating our value offers, products and services in a clear, vibrant and creative way and take great pains to ensure that our messages are understood. This includes carrying out extensive customer research, focus groups and social media engagement which enable us to measure our effectiveness and respond effectively to customer feedback.” Up to press time, major telecommunications firm LIME had not yet responded to the request for a comment.

However, telecommunications firms were not the only entities accused of ‘misleading advertisement’. According to the PIOJ survey, while the largest number of complaints was lodged against telecommunications firms (110), firms selling automobiles (38), and educational institutions (21) were also investigated for misleading advertisements.

Complaints against firms selling automobiles were related to, among other things, defective vehicles, resistance towards honouring or failure to honour warranties, misrepresentation about sale price and misrepresentation regarding features or accessories.

Educational institutions were investigated for complaints related to misrepresentations about the type and quality of services being offered, being accredited by various accrediting bodies and the provision of materials such as computers and textbooks as a part of the course and upon payment of a certain sum.

“Upon registration and payment of the previously quoted fee, students discover that they are required to make further payments in order to receive course materials. In other instances, scheduled classes are curtailed without any offer of refund. Complaints reveal, too, that often guarantees of placement in other courses and institutions, on successful completion of relevant courses of study, are not fulfilled,” the FTC outlined. Institutions found to have misrepresented itself to the public are liable for prosecution and a a penalty of up to $5 million.

The FTC is mandated to ensure competition and consumer protection under the Fair Trading Act. It has the power to carry out investigations in relation to the conduct of businesses in Jamaica to determine if any enterprise is engaging in practices that are in breach of the Act and can take to court, any business or individual who has been found guilty of anti-competitive practice and has failed to take corrective measures, after being instructed by the commissioners appointed by the FTC.