- A shopper clicked on a Facebook ad offering 40% off but found no discount when trying to buy.
- The ARB found the advert misleading and warned that conditions like time limits must always be made clear.
- This ruling shows how hidden terms in online promotions leave ordinary people frustrated and damage trust in digital shopping.
For many South Africans, online shopping has become a seamless part of daily life. Scrolling through Facebook or Instagram, spotting a deal, and clicking through to purchase feels convenient, fast, and often thrilling.
One shopper experienced that thrill when she saw a Superbalist advertisement promising 40% off a product she had been eyeing. At first, she was excited by the prospect of a bargain, but the excitement quickly turned to confusion and disappointment when she reached the website and saw that the discounted price was nowhere to be found. The offer she had relied on simply did not exist.
When she contacted Superbalist for clarification, the response she received was vague, stating that the promotion was “time sensitive.” The original Facebook post, however, contained no information about when the offer started or when it would end. For the consumer, this was more than a minor inconvenience; it felt like a broken promise and a breach of trust.
How misleading ads affect consumers
This kind of misleading advertising has a profound impact on consumers. Online shoppers invest not just money, but also time and trust in the promises made by digital marketing. When those promises are broken, frustration and disillusionment are inevitable. Confidence in the brand erodes, and future engagement with online promotions can diminish.
Social media complicates this further. Posts can resurface in feeds long after they were originally published, creating the illusion that an expired promotion is still active. In such cases, even the most attentive shoppers can be misled. The ARB highlighted this in its ruling, noting that the absence of clear information about the promotion’s timeframe is likely to mislead consumers. Even if the product was once part of a genuine promotion, failing to communicate the timing accurately misrepresents the offer.
The ARB ruling: Setting the standard
The Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB) reviewed the complaint and found that the ad contravened Clause 4.2.1 of Section II of the Code of Advertising Practice, which prohibits any statements, omissions, or ambiguities that are likely to mislead consumers. The Board emphasized that promotions with specific time limits or conditions must clearly communicate these details upfront, and vague language such as “time sensitive” is not enough.
Although Superbalist is not an ARB member and the ruling does not legally bind them, it serves as guidance for other advertisers. It illustrates the Board’s commitment to protecting consumers from misleading claims and sets a benchmark for responsible advertising practices in the digital space.
Learning from the Superbalist Case
The Superbalist ruling shows that the digital marketplace requires more than just flashy promotions and eye-catching posts. Consumers expect honesty, clarity, and full disclosure of terms when they are offered discounts. When brands fail to meet these expectations, they risk disappointing shoppers, eroding trust, and undermining the integrity of online commerce.
Ultimately, advertising is a conversation between businesses and their customers. A promise made in an ad carries weight, and failing to honour it can have real consequences. The Superbalist case is a cautionary tale for both consumers and advertisers, highlighting the need for transparency, accountability, and ethical marketing practices in every online promotion.
Conviction.co.za
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
