Skip to content
Close Menu
ConvictionConviction
  • Home
  • Law & Justice
  • Special Reports
  • Opinion
  • Ask The Expert
  • Get In Touch

Subscribe to Updates

Get the latest creative news from FooBar about art, design and business.

What's Hot

South Africa cannot afford to lag while youth nicotine addiction escalates

June 2, 2026

Evicted Durban tenants win urgent court order pending eviction challenge

June 2, 2026

Pension fund withdrawal benefits are determined by rules, not contributions

June 2, 2026
Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
Trending
  • South Africa cannot afford to lag while youth nicotine addiction escalates
  • Evicted Durban tenants win urgent court order pending eviction challenge
  • Pension fund withdrawal benefits are determined by rules, not contributions
  • Teachers win compensation after decade of rolling contracts ruled unlawful
  • Tshwane loses land expropriation battle, ordered to relocate Kanana Village residents
  • Sportscene lawyers ordered to pay costs after appeal delayed by flawed court record
  • Do South Africa’s archives serve justice or preserve historical injustice?
  • Turning your home into student accommodation could cost landlords dearly
Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
ConvictionConviction
Sonneblom
  • Home
  • Law & Justice
  • Special Reports
  • Opinion
  • Ask The Expert
  • Get In Touch
ConvictionConviction
Home » Watchdog criticizes DStv for misleading customers with false savings in internet bundle ad
Consumer Protection Law

Watchdog criticizes DStv for misleading customers with false savings in internet bundle ad

The Advertising Regulatory Board found that MultiChoice misled customers by advertising a R1 249 per month deal that left out required fees and made the offer seem better than it was.
Kennedy MudzuliBy Kennedy MudzuliOctober 18, 2025No Comments
Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn WhatsApp Reddit Tumblr Email
Share
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest Email
  • The ARB ruled that DStv’s “Internet + Premium” advert violated advertising standards by creating a misleading impression of savings,
  • The watchdog found that no customer could get the package at the advertised R1 249 because of a compulsory access fee,
  • MultiChoice has been ordered to withdraw or amend the campaign and clearly disclose the true cost of the service.

DStv, South Africa’s major broadcaster, was found to have misled its customers with an internet bundle promotion that promised savings that were not real.

On 14 October 2025, the Advertising Regulatory Board said MultiChoice’s “Internet + Premium” campaign made the deal seem more affordable than it was and did not mention required fees, so customers ended up paying more than advertised.

A DStv Premium subscriber complained after being charged more than the advertised R1 249 per month for the “Internet + Premium 400 GB” offer. He was billed an extra R125 access fee, making his total R1 374.

When he questioned the discrepancy, DStv informed him that the fee “was no longer being waived when adding an internet package.” The consumer told the ARB this was “a clear case of false advertising” because the company’s website had promised savings for existing customers who added internet to their package.

DStv’s defence and the ARB’s response

MultiChoice told the ARB that the customer had misunderstood the offer. The company said the promotion was not open to everyone and that it was specifically designed for Premium subscribers on month-to-month plans, not those on fixed 24-month contracts like the complainant. “The complainant is mistakenly under the impression that he is able to convert his current subscription to the advertised offer, which is not the case,” DStv said in its submission.

According to DStv, the complainant already benefited from a reduced monthly rate of R899, which included Showmax and the access fee. The promotion, the company said, was aimed at customers paying month-to-month rates who could lower their total cost by combining services. “The message is that customers who can benefit should consider this offer, as opposed to all current customers would benefit,” the company explained.

The ARB rejected that reasoning, saying the advertisement itself made no such distinction. “The advertised offer is not presented as being limited to subscribers who pay on a month-to-month basis,” the Directorate wrote. “It merely invites ‘Existing customers’ and explains that they ‘can save by adding DStv Internet to their current package.’ It would therefore appear that any existing customer who does not currently have the DStv Internet package can ‘upgrade’ their package to this offer, as the Complainant in fact appears to have done.”

Hidden costs and broken promises

The watchdog found that DStv’s advertising breached Clause 4.2.1 of the Code of Advertising Practice, which prohibits misleading claims, and Clause 19, which governs how prices are displayed. “Clause 19.2 of Section II effectively requires advertisers to disclose all mandatory costs in their advertising, or at the very least, give a clear indication that such mandatory costs may apply,” the ruling stated.

The ARB concluded that DStv had failed to meet this requirement. “The advertisement provides a specific indication of costs, ‘R1 249 PM,’ without any indication that this is contingent on other factors, or that other additional costs may still apply,” the decision said. “It would also appear that the Access Fee is a compulsory charge and that no customers can in fact, secure the package for the advertised price of R1 249.”

The ARB described the advert as “problematic” because it made an unqualified promise to all existing customers while concealing a compulsory fee. “The broad and unqualified offer to any ‘Existing customers,’ coupled with a specified monthly cost, communicates a saving regardless of one’s starting point,” the Directorate found. “In fact, some customers do not save on this package.”

DStv ordered to amend or withdraw advert

The ARB ordered MultiChoice to either amend or withdraw the advertisement. “The advertiser is, accordingly, requested to withdraw or appropriately amend its advertising to make it clear that the claimed saving only applies to customers currently paying on a month-to-month basis, and to clarify that the Access Fee is payable,” the ruling said.

“No customers can in fact secure the package for the advertised price of R1 249,” the ARB found, calling DStv’s internet bundle promotion misleading and incomplete.

Conviction.co.za

Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.

Advertising Regulatory Board consumer protection DStv Online Advertising Pricing Transparency
Share. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Telegram Email
Kennedy Mudzuli

Multiple award-winner with passion for news and training young journalists. Founder and editor of Conviction.co.za

Related Posts

Dead wife contradiction forces Nedbank to return repossessed Nissan Navara

May 29, 2026

Watchdog busts Mia & Leah Cape Town for faking local ties and delivery deals

May 23, 2026

SCA clears the way for banks to recover unpaid vehicle debt in the High Court

May 23, 2026
Leave A Reply Cancel Reply

Prove your humanity: 2   +   2   =  

Subscribe to our newsletter:
Top Posts

Making sectional title rules that work: A practical guide

January 17, 2025

Protection order among the consequences of trespassing in an ‘Exclusive Use Area’

December 31, 2024

Between a rock and a foul-smelling place

November 27, 2024

Irregular levy increases, mismanagement, and legal threats in a sectional title scheme

June 2, 2025
Don't Miss
Opinion
5 Mins Read

South Africa cannot afford to lag while youth nicotine addiction escalates

By Professor Lekan Ayo-YusufJune 2, 20265 Mins Read

Smoking and vaping among young South Africans have risen sharply over the past 15 years, raising concerns about nicotine addiction and delayed regulation.

Evicted Durban tenants win urgent court order pending eviction challenge

June 2, 2026

Pension fund withdrawal benefits are determined by rules, not contributions

June 2, 2026

Teachers win compensation after decade of rolling contracts ruled unlawful

June 2, 2026
Stay In Touch
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • WhatsApp
Demo
About Us
About Us

Helping South Africans to navigate the legal landscape; providing accessible legal information; and giving a voice to those seeking justice.

Facebook X (Twitter) YouTube WhatsApp Twitch RSS
Latest posts

Making sectional title rules that work: A practical guide

January 17, 2025

Protection order among the consequences of trespassing in an ‘Exclusive Use Area’

December 31, 2024

Between a rock and a foul-smelling place

November 27, 2024
OUR PICKS

Online marketplace scams are becoming more sophisticated, warns fraud expert Ashwini Singh

May 26, 2026

Understanding employee rights, workplace protections and grievance resolution in South Africa

June 8, 2025

R13,914 debt triggers sale of R380 000 home, transfer halted amid execution flaws

April 20, 2026
© 2026 Conviction.
  • Home
  • Law & Justice
  • Special Reports
  • Opinion
  • Ask The Expert
  • Get In Touch

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.

Powered by
►
Necessary cookies enable essential site features like secure log-ins and consent preference adjustments. They do not store personal data.
None
►
Functional cookies support features like content sharing on social media, collecting feedback, and enabling third-party tools.
None
►
Analytical cookies track visitor interactions, providing insights on metrics like visitor count, bounce rate, and traffic sources.
None
►
Advertisement cookies deliver personalized ads based on your previous visits and analyze the effectiveness of ad campaigns.
None
►
Unclassified cookies are cookies that we are in the process of classifying, together with the providers of individual cookies.
None
Powered by