Print This Post
Product: Miscellaneous – Online Retailer
Medium: Internet (Company Website)
ASAI Code 7th Edition: 2.4(c), 3.10, 4.1, 4.4, 4.9, 4.10
The advertisement stated:
A happy customer is a repeat customer. With that in mind, we strive to make the whole buying process as easy as possible for potential customers.
MunsterGadgets is an online wholesaler of Android TV equipment. We are based in Co. Limerick, Ireland. We offer a varied range of Android TV equipment.
Our aim is to provide our customers with the widest range of AndroidTV goods at the lowest possible prices.
MunsterGadgets specialise in Free TV, offering a range of high quality Android TV equipment at discounted prices direct to our customers. We provide free information & video tutorials on how to save money by installing the equipment yourself. We provide a professional and fast delivery service, offering the Free TV equipment you need without any hassle.
We offer detailed technical advice on all our products including step-by-step guides, video tutorials and user manuals. We do this for several reasons – the main one being that we want our customers to be 100% confident in their purchase. We aim to supply each customer with a product that suits their needs exactly. We believe knowledge is the key, since we have experience in the industry we feel it should be shared so others can use it to their benefit…”
Under the tab “Things we do” two of the things listed were:
• “We reply to ALL emails
• We provide detailed system schematics to assist our customers...”
The complainant said he purchased an M8 Kodi Android Box from the company which regularly required updating. When carrying out the updates to the box, he made an error and despite the claim by the advertisers that they “reply to all emails” they did not reply to the one sent by the complainant when he requested their help.
The complainant also queried whether the advertisers provided “detailed system schematics” as stated in their advertising. He said their statement that “A happy customer is a repeat customer” was meaningless given his particular circumstances, he considered the claim in question to be unqualified.
The advertisers failed to respond to the complaint.
The Complaints Committee considered the detail of the complaint and expressed their concern at the advertisers’ failure to respond to the complaint. They reminded them that there is an onus on advertisers to ensure that their advertising is in conformity with the Code.
In the absence of a response from the advertisers, the Committee concluded that the claims made in their advertising had not been substantiated and upheld the complaint under Sections 3.10, 4.4, 4.9 and 4.10 of the Code.
The advertising should not be used again in its current format.