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

Biko family slams investigation gaps and forces dramatic halt to inquest in court

September 9, 2026

Madlanga Commissioner Sandile Khumalo SC, Myron Dewrance SC targeted in threat campaign

September 9, 2026

Lawyers ordered to pay from their own pockets after refusing to abandon hopeless appeal

September 9, 2026
Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
Trending
  • Biko family slams investigation gaps and forces dramatic halt to inquest in court
  • Madlanga Commissioner Sandile Khumalo SC, Myron Dewrance SC targeted in threat campaign
  • Lawyers ordered to pay from their own pockets after refusing to abandon hopeless appeal
  • Sea Point building plans declared unlawful, but luxury apartment development will continue
  • Protecting South Africa’s teachers starts with truly safe schools for everyone
  • Electoral Court dismisses UDF Party application for more time to nominate candidates
  • KZN High Court scraps paper court orders in major digital overhaul
  • Inmate death and alleged assaults at Kutama Correctional Centre spark series of lawsuits
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

TotalEnergies told it cannot claim its fuel cuts CO₂ without proof

September 7, 2026

Uitzicht or Durbanville? Property listings spark heated suburb dispute

September 1, 2026

Scrapyard held insured bakkie despite insurer paying towing costs

August 27, 2026
Leave A Reply Cancel Reply

Prove your humanity: 3   +   6   =  

Subscribe to our newsletter:
Top Posts

Your driving licence at the gate: What estates can actually legally scan

Sponsor: My Estate LifeSeptember 6, 2026

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
Don't Miss
Special Reports
3 Mins Read

Biko family slams investigation gaps and forces dramatic halt to inquest in court

By Kennedy MudzuliSeptember 9, 20263 Mins Read

The reopened inquest into Steve Biko’s death has been temporarily halted after his family approached the Gqeberha High Court over concerns that the matter was not ready to proceed.

Madlanga Commissioner Sandile Khumalo SC, Myron Dewrance SC targeted in threat campaign

September 9, 2026

Lawyers ordered to pay from their own pockets after refusing to abandon hopeless appeal

September 9, 2026

Sea Point building plans declared unlawful, but luxury apartment development will continue

September 9, 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

Your driving licence at the gate: What estates can actually legally scan

Sponsor: My Estate LifeSeptember 6, 2026

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
OUR PICKS

Western Cape judges open the Bar to foreign-trained lawyers in South Africa

September 2, 2026

Justice Department ordered to promote five senior secretaries with back pay

September 3, 2026

My soul is not happy: Sharpeville survivors take government to court over apartheid reparations

September 4, 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