A television advertisement for eMobile’s Unlimited Plan featured a character attempting to use the full allowance of the eMobile Unlimited Plan.
The advertisement stated:
“Meet Dave, Head of Plan Proving at eMobile from Eircom. This month, Dave is proving just how unlimited eMobile’s unlimited plan is. Unfortunately for Dave, eMobile’s unlimited plan gives you more minutes than there are in a month, and more texts than you could possibly send, all to any network, for just €39 a month for eircom customers. So, unlike Dave, you’ll have nothing to worry about.”
The on-screen text stated:
“10,000 any network texts, 45,000 any network minutes”
“Subject to 18 months contracts on eMobile unlimited + data and homephone/broadband. See emobile.ie for terms.”
“Unlilmited calls & texts + 5BG data, €39 a month. eMobile. Go-instore, 1800 303 255, eMobile .ie”
The press advertisement stated:
“No one can beat our Unlimited plan (not even Dave)
45,000 minutes; 10,000 texts + 5GB data
only €39 a month for eircom customers
And check out our great range of smartphones
Go in-store; 1800-303-205”
Footnote: “Subject to 18 month contracts on eMobile Unlimited + data and homephone/broadband. Fair usage of 45,000 any network minutes monthly applies, that’s more minutes than there are in a month! Plus 10,000 any network texts monthly. Excludes roaming, international, premium rate and non-geographic usage. See emobile.ie”
The complainant viewed the advertising and signed up to eMobile on an 18 month contract, however, he has not been able to avail of the full service due to coverage problems in his area (Navan). The complainant noted that the advertising did not alert prospective customers to any coverage issues and he therefore considered that the advertising was misleading.
The advertisers stated that the complaint appeared to relate to the level of coverage received by the complainant rather than to the content of their advertising. They referred to specific terms on their website regarding coverage and requested that the complainant contact them directly so they could investigate further.
In response to a request from ASAI, eMobile stated that they would require a more specific location to properly investigate the matter and they again stated that the issue appeared to be an operational issue rather than an advertising issue.
eMobile provided the ASAI Secretariat with copies of coverage maps for data coverage in the Navan area. They stated that the maps showed a high level view of both 2G and 3G data cover in Navan and confirmed that there were areas in Navan where there would be poor data coverage. They again offered to investigate the matter further were they to receive the complainant’s address.
With the complainant’s permission, his full postal address was provided to eMobile.
No further comments related to the provision of the address were received from the advertisers.
The Complaints Committee considered the detail of the complaint and the response from the advertiser. The Complaints Committee noted that the advertising had not stated “subject to availability” and they therefore, considered that the advertising was in breach of 2.9 of the Code. In the circumstances the complaint was upheld.
The advertisement must not reappear in its current form.