TORONTO – The Ontario Court of Justice sided with Rogers Communications today over the Canadian Competition Bureau.
Back in 2010, the Bureau launched a lawsuit against the wireless company saying that its ads for low cost flanker brand Chatr made misleading claims about dropped calls and that the claims made by Rogers were not based on adequate and proper tests. The original complaint was brought forward by new entrant competitor Mobilicity and the proceeding brought by the Bureau asked the court to fine Rogers $10 million. The two sides met in court last summer, as Cartt.ca reported.
The court, however, sided with Rogers and threw out the Bureau petition.
"We're pleased that the court today confirmed that Chatr's advertising of fewer dropped calls, in connection with its 2010 launch, was fair and accurate. The court also confirmed that the drive testing used by Rogers is the best method for comparing network performance and is universally accepted, both in Canada and internationally,” reads a statement put out by Rogers.
“Testing conducted both before and after the 2010 launch confirmed the accuracy of Chatr's advertising. The court found that we should have completed additional testing in certain urban markets in advance of the launch. This testing was completed shortly after launch… We always strive to meet the highest possible standards of accuracy and clarity in all our advertisements and in all the information we provide to consumers."
"We are disappointed that the Court did not agree that Rogers’ claims were misleading to consumers, and we are currently considering our next steps in this matter," said John Pecman, Commissioner of Competition, in a statement released Tuesday afternoon. "Nevertheless, we are pleased that the Court has dismissed the constitutional challenges brought forth by Rogers, and has agreed with our position that Rogers did not conduct adequate and proper testing beforehand to support its claims about dropped calls in some Canadian cities."
During the legal proceedings, Rogers made constitutional challenges to two key provisions of the Competition Act: i) the administrative monetary penalty remedy available under the misleading representations provisions of the Act; and, ii) the requirement in the Act that advertisers conduct tests prior to making performance claims. The Bureau successfully argued that the requirement for adequate and proper testing before making a claim about the performance of a product is justified. Similarly, the Court agreed with the Bureau’s position that administrative monetary penalties are not criminal in nature, says the Bureau statement.
