- Teneo Education challenges CambriLearn’s advertising, which claimed to be the number one rated online school in South Africa.
- Advertising board says it cannot determine whether Trustpilot, HelloPeter, Facebook, or Google reviews should carry more weight in rankings.
- CambriLearn withdraws unqualified number one claims and promises to clarify the source of any future ratings.
No decision can be made about whether Trustpilot ratings should count more than HelloPeter reviews, or whether Facebook and Google reviews should be included when calculating rankings.
The issue stems from a competitor complaint lodged by Teneo Education Pty Ltd against Top Dog Internet Sales Pty Ltd, trading as CambriLearn. The complaint focused on CambriLearn’s website and online ads, which described the platform as the “#1 rated online school in South Africa for students aged 5 to 18” and the “number one rated online school.”
Parties and background
Teneo Education, represented by Deon de Beer and Associates Incorporated, argued that these bold claims were misleading. The concern was that CambriLearn’s claims appeared to rely on customer reviews from platforms like HelloPeter, Trustpilot, Facebook, and Google. According to Teneo, these platforms do not provide independent and credible evidence that substantiates their national number one status.
The complaint also noted a comparison page on CambriLearn’s website, where both schools’ services were compared using criteria such as ratings from Facebook, Google, HelloPeter, and Trustpilot, as well as curriculum, subject offerings, and fees.
Teneo Education argued that some of the ratings used in CambriLearn’s advertising were inaccurate or outdated. As the complaint stated, “Some of the reported ratings are not accurately portrayed in the advertising, or at the very least are not based on current data, which actually reflects that the complainant received higher ratings on HelloPeter and Trustpilot.”
Teneo further claimed that the advertising created a misleading impression about the schools’ relative standing. It said, “These inaccurate portrayals create a false impression that the complainant is inferior.”
CambriLearn’s Response
CambriLearn, represented by ENS Attorneys, responded that it is not a member of the Advertising Regulatory Board and does not consent to its jurisdiction. Nevertheless, it addressed the complaint’s substance. CambriLearn acknowledged that aggregating ratings from multiple platforms may not always provide clarity for consumers and decided to amend its advertising, discontinuing unqualified claims that it is the “#1 rated online school” or “number one rated online school.”
The company further indicated that in future, any claims would specify the platform on which a rating is based, so consumers can understand the metric used.
Jurisdiction
Although CambriLearn maintains it does not submit to the Advertising Regulatory Board’s jurisdiction, the regulator explained it may still assess complaints for the guidance of its members.
As the ruling explained: “The Advertising Regulatory Board has no jurisdiction over any person or entity who is not a member and may not, in the absence of a submission to its jurisdiction, require non-members to participate in its processes.”
However, the ruling continued: “The Advertising Regulatory Board may consider and issue a ruling to its members regarding any advertisement, regardless of by whom it is published, to determine, on behalf of its members, whether its members should accept any advertisement before it is published or should withdraw any advertisement if it has been published.”
Board’s Assessment
In its assessment, the board considered substantiation requirements in Clause 4.1 of Section II of the Code of Advertising Practice. The ruling said, “This clause is not prescriptive in terms of which criteria is used, which source is relied on, or which methodology is preferred.”
As a result, the board said it could not determine which review platform should carry more weight when advertisers use customer reviews to support ranking claims.
According to the ruling: “The Directorate is therefore not able to make a definitive decision on whether ratings by Trustpilot are preferable to ratings by HelloPeter, or whether Facebook and Google reviews should be included or omitted from comparisons.”
The board added that if the source of a ranking is identified, consumers can judge the basis of the claim for themselves. As the ruling noted, “Customers who see a claim such as ‘#1 rated online school in South Africa on Trustpilot’ are immediately informed that this is based on reviews left on Trustpilot.”
Outcome
CambriLearn informed the board it would discontinue the use of unqualified claims, stating it is the “#1 rated online school” and the “number one rated online school.”
The board accepted this undertaking as an adequate resolution to the complaint. The ruling stated, “The undertaking is accepted on condition that the unqualified claims are removed with immediate effect and are removed from every medium in which they appear.”
The board also emphasised that advertisers using rating-based claims must withdraw them if the ranking no longer reflects their actual position.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
