Virgin Media slammed for hiding key details in small print
By Stewart Mitchell
Posted on 25 Apr 2012 at 08:51
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has hit out at Virgin Media, claiming the ISP misled customers by hiding key information in illegible smallprint.
According to the ASA, the complaint related to a “Faster for a fiver” February advert in which billing charges, contract-length, availability and ongoing costs of £18.50 a month were buried in small print.
The ASA ruling stated that Virgin had argued that the small print in question was larger than the industry standard. “Virgin said its minimum font size for small print in press was between 5.5 and 6 points, which they believed to be clearly visible to a normally-sighted person,” the ASA said. “Virgin believed that the industry standard for small print was on average between point size 4 and 4.5.”
Because the small print was not presented clearly, and contained material information, we concluded that the ad was misleading
Virgin also said it was not responsible for the quality of printing.
The ASA disagreed, ruling that the combination of text size and print quality made the information hard to read, and that the text contained key information for end users. “We considered that the size of the text, in combination with the low quality of the print, meant it was not clearly visible to a normally-sighted person,” the ASA said.
“We noted that the small print contained information that did not appear elsewhere in the ad, such as the price of the line rental and the minimum contract length, and we considered this information to be material to consumers' understanding of the offer.
"Because the small print was not presented clearly, and contained material information, we concluded that the ad was misleading.”
The ASA told Virgin not to run the ad again and to ensure future ads were clearer.
All companies do this
Big headline price in enormous letters, then much, much smaller print saying this is only for the short period, after which the price will hike dramatically. Oh, and don't forget line rental and other costs. Broadband for a fiver will always cost you >£20/month once you get going.
By The_Scrote on 25 Apr 2012 
About time ASA woke up
Virgin are not the only ones. Why don't ASA force the advertisers to put all the important information in the same font and size as the headlines so customer can clearly see what the actual offers is?
By curiousclive on 25 Apr 2012
"Don't run the ad again"
I'm pretty sure they stopped 2 months ago. Companies continually get away with lies and deceit because there are no serious consequences. It's a joke.
By renhoek on 25 Apr 2012
Virgin are offering me an upgrade to 60mbs broadband.
Looked in to it and I notice that my area isn't due to be upgraded until quote from their website "from July onwards".
How about come and speak to me when you have done the upgrade.
Also when you ask the person on the phone what the upload speed is they can't tell you. You have search on their forums to find out it's 6mbs (depending on how many others are using it at the same time).
And don't get me started on their throttling...
By bigrob14 on 25 Apr 2012
What the rules should be
Ongoing costs should be the same size and prominence as the headline cost and minimum contract term and the duration of the headline term should be at least as large and prominent as the main body of the advert. The ASA should fine companies a percentage of their turnover for breaking the rules.
By Simon_Jones_RWC on 25 Apr 2012
Rules are irrelevant
Until the ASA can do more than say "don't run the advert again, even though we know you had no plans to run it again anyway", and trot out the same old thing next time it happens, any rules are totally irrelevant.
The ISP industry will continue to bend the common definition of familiar English words and bury things in the small print - because their deals are rubbish and they can't be up-front about them.
Fair play to one ISP though who actually make the ongoing (high) monthly cost more prominent than the initial (low) monthly cost when you compile a package on their website (sorry, forgotten who).
By halsteadk on 25 Apr 2012
Come on Halsteadk name the ISP who plays fair maybe they will get more customers and shame the others into doing the same when they start losing money.
By curiousclive on 25 Apr 2012
Weirdly...
... I was thinking of Virgin. When you customise your pack, the monthly cost is (slightly) more prominent than the initial cost. But on the other pages, it's business as usual - big prominent initial price, smaller long-term price, and even smaller text that line rental is compulsory and on top.
Not sure you can say your bundle is £22.50 and includes unlimited calls when that price doesn't include the phone line to make them which is a mandatory charge on top. But hey, that's ISP logic.
By halsteadk on 25 Apr 2012
there is an easy answer....
Make ISP licences conditional on them clearly stating the minimum term and average monthly cost over that term (including all compulsory items like line rental and connection fees) in their ads.
That will also highlight those offering broadband for £10 over first three months then hiking the price for the rest of the minimum 12 month contract. Yes I'm talking about you BT.
This would be similar to financial institutions having to date interest rates as APR
By Hamster on 25 Apr 2012
date = state
Oh how I hate typing on a smart phone!
By Hamster on 25 Apr 2012
advertisement
- Flickr redesign: is it enough to tempt photographers back?
- Hands on with the new Google Maps
- Nokia Lumia 925 review: first look
- Why I won't subscribe to Creative Cloud
- GoPro camera strapped to a remote-control helicopter: the ultimate boy's toy
- Acer Iconia A1 review: first look
- Acer Aspire P3 review: first look
- Acer Aspire R7 review: first look
- How we produce the PC Pro podcast
- Google Now draining iPhone battery
- ZoneAlarm Internet Security Suite
- Webroot Internet Security Essentials
- Trend Micro Internet Security
- PC Tools Internet Security 2009
- Panda Internet Security 2009
- Norton Internet Security 2009
- Kaspersky Internet Security 2009
- F-Secure Internet Security 2009
- AVG Internet Security 8
- BullGuard Internet Security 8.5
advertisement
