- The Advertising Regulatory Board found that Huawei Care’s theft cover advertising likely misled consumers about what was actually covered.
- Consumers were promised theft cover, but the policy excluded claims for thefts that happened without force, violence or the threat of force.
- Huawei Care has been ordered to withdraw the adverts and make the limits of its theft cover clear in future campaigns.
Huawei Care has been ordered to withdraw advertising that promised consumers theft cover for their mobile devices after the Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB) found that the adverts created a misleading impression about the protection available under the policy.
The ruling stems from a complaint by a consumer who said he purchased Huawei Care device insurance believing he would be covered against theft and loss. However, after his phone was allegedly stolen by a pickpocket, his claim was initially rejected because there had been no force involved in the incident.
The ARB concluded that the advertising's broad promises of theft cover were likely to mislead consumers because they did not alert prospective customers that certain thefts would fall outside the scope of the policy.
Complaint highlights gap between adverts and policy
The complaint centred on Facebook posts and sponsored advertisements promoting Huawei Care insurance for mobile devices.
The adverts told consumers they would be covered for “Theft and loss”, stated “Here’s what we've got covered ... Theft ... Loss”, and promoted Huawei Care as offering “Theft cover” for devices.
The complainant argued that these claims created the impression that theft of a phone would be covered regardless of how it occurred.
After his phone was allegedly stolen through pickpocketing, he was informed that the claim did not qualify because no force or threat of force had been involved.
He submitted that there was a significant difference between the ordinary understanding of theft cover and the way the insurer applied its policy terms.
Huawei Care relied on policy exclusions
Huawei Care opposed the complaint and argued that the complainant had omitted important information from his submission to the ARB.
According to the advertiser, the complainant subsequently lodged an objection with the National Financial Ombudsman Scheme, supplied additional information and ultimately received payment for the loss of his device on 14 May 2026.
Huawei Care further argued that policyholders receive detailed policy documentation explaining the terms and exclusions applicable to the insurance product.
The company pointed to policy exclusions which stated that theft claims would not be covered unless accompanied by force, violence, forcible entry or threats of force in specified circumstances.
Huawei Care maintained that customers are obliged to familiarise themselves with their policy terms and argued that the exclusions were clearly set out in the policy documentation.
ARB focused on the advertising
The directorate stressed that it was not required to determine whether the complainant's claim should have been paid or whether the policy wording itself was valid. Instead, the issue before it was whether the advertising created a misleading impression for consumers.
“The ARB can only determine whether advertising content was potentially misleading or otherwise in breach of the Code of Advertising Practice,” the ruling stated.
The directorate also noted that while the complainant eventually received payment through another forum, that development did not resolve the advertising concerns raised in the complaint.
Consumers would understand theft in its ordinary sense
A central issue in the matter was whether consumers would understand the word “theft” to include situations where no force or violence was involved. The ARB concluded that most consumers would interpret theft according to its ordinary meaning.
“The ordinary understanding of the word ‘theft’ likely refers to taking something that does not belong to you,” the directorate stated. It further noted that theft “does not necessarily presuppose violence or force”.
While accepting that exclusions requiring force or violence are common in certain insurance products, the directorate was not convinced that consumers would automatically expect those limitations in a device-specific insurance policy that prominently advertised theft cover.
Advertising created expectation of broad cover
The ARB found that Huawei Care’s advertising created a broad expectation that devices would be covered if they were stolen. “The implication is that regardless of how your device is lost or stolen, you would be covered,” the ruling stated.
The directorate attached significance to the fact that the advertising related specifically to mobile devices rather than household insurance or general all-risk cover.
It noted that Huawei Care would have been aware that mobile phones are frequently stolen through pickpocketing and other non-violent methods. Despite this, the advertising contained no indication that theft cover was limited to incidents involving force, violence or threats.
“There is nothing in the advertising that would alert a prospective customer to the fact that only forceful and/or violent theft would be covered,” the directorate found.
The ruling also highlighted the absence of disclaimers, qualifications or warnings that could have alerted consumers to the limitations attached to the advertised theft cover.
Adverts found misleading
After considering the complaint and the advertiser's response, the ARB concluded that the overall impression created by the advertising did not match the restrictions contained in the policy.
“Given the broad expectation created by the advertising does not match the apparent policy limitations, the Directorate is inclined to agree with the complainant that the advertising would likely mislead prospective customers into believing that they would be covered for any theft,” the ruling stated.
The directorate therefore found that the advertising contravened Clause 4.2.1 of Section II of the Code of Advertising Practice, which prohibits advertising that is likely to mislead consumers.
As a result, Huawei Care has been instructed to withdraw the advertising that gave rise to the complaint and to ensure that future advertising accurately explains the scope of its theft cover.
The ARB also directed its members not to accept advertising that creates a similarly broad expectation that all forms of theft will be covered where material limitations apply.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
