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

SAHRC vs Lagardien: The sign came down, but the principle stays up

October 15, 2026

Dealership ordered to refund R323,950 for faulty car advertised in ‘excellent condition’

October 15, 2026

Lease, R228 million tender and assassination plots in Matlala’s mounting legal battles

October 15, 2026
Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
Trending
  • SAHRC vs Lagardien: The sign came down, but the principle stays up
  • Dealership ordered to refund R323,950 for faulty car advertised in ‘excellent condition’
  • Lease, R228 million tender and assassination plots in Matlala’s mounting legal battles
  • Elections analyst surprised but not shocked by ANC ballot ruling, Terry Tselane defends IEC
  • Fraud conviction set aside due to unregistered candidate attorney’s role in trial
  • Moepya commits IEC to ANC ballot changes and pledges review of nomination rules
  • Body corporate loses execution order after summons went missing in its own building
  • Malawi court blocks Bushiris’ extradition to SA, citing evidentiary and procedural defects
Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
ConvictionConviction
Sonneblom
  • Home
  • Law & Justice
  • Special Reports
  • Opinion
  • Ask The Expert
  • Get In Touch
ConvictionConviction
Home » Etihad Airways found to have misled the public with return flights from R635 promotion
Regulatory Law

Etihad Airways found to have misled the public with return flights from R635 promotion

The ARB upheld a consumer complaint after Etihad could not prove its R635 fares were actually available during the promotion.
Kennedy MudzuliBy Kennedy MudzuliMarch 29, 2026No Comments
Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn WhatsApp Reddit Tumblr Email
Etihad Airways found to have misled consumers with return flights from R635 promotion after failing to prove fare availability during the advertised period.
Share
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest Email
  • ARB ruled Etihad’s “return from ZAR 635” ad was misleading.
  • The airline offered no proof that the fares were genuinely available.
  • The ruling was made even though Etihad never responded to the complaint.

The Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB) has ruled that a Facebook ad by Etihad Airways promoting return flights from R635 gave consumers a false impression of what was actually on offer.

A consumer flagged an Etihad ad suggesting return flights to Abu Dhabi were available for under R9,000, with fares starting from just R635. She questioned whether those prices were ever realistically within reach and argued the ad left people with a misleading picture of what they could actually book.

The complainant stated, “I understand perhaps one or two of these flights were available when the ad launched.” She went further, questioning the fairness of the continued promotion, adding, “How long can a company ethically claim such prices when nothing near those prices is available in the following days?”

She also highlighted difficulties in obtaining clarity from the airline, stating, “When I spoke to customer service, they refused to answer my questions about the promotion or the advert.”

Etihad went silent

Etihad never responded, despite repeated attempts to reach them. The ARB acknowledged it has no direct authority over non-members, but it can still rule on whether its members should accept or pull an advertiser’s content.

In short, the ARB cannot force a non-member to act, but it can tell its members whether an ad is acceptable to run.

Why the ad fell short

The ARB assessed the ad against the Code of Advertising Practice, focusing on rules around misleading claims, price representations, and sale advertising.

The ruling was clear. Ads must not create a false impression of availability, and the Code states, “Advertising should not contain any statement or visual presentation which is likely to mislead the consumer.”

“From” pricing is only acceptable when those prices are genuinely available to a meaningful number of consumers. The Code makes clear that such claims are unacceptable where they “bear no relation to the prevailing level of prices.”

Etihad’s silence made the case simple. With no supporting evidence submitted, the ARB had nothing to weigh against the complaint. As the Directorate noted, “No such evidence is before the Directorate.”

The ARB also considered the ordinary consumer’s perspective. As the ruling put it, “A hypothetical reasonable person would, on seeing the advertisement, conclude that return tickets to Abu Dhabi were still available at the advertised price.”

The verdict

The ARB found that the ad breached multiple provisions of the Code. The ruling was unambiguous, stating, “The claim ‘return from ZAR 635’ was misleading.” The ad was found to have contravened rules on misleading claims, pricing structures, and sale advertising.

Since the promotion had already ended by the time of the ruling, no further action was needed from ARB members.

Conviction.co.za

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

Advertising Regulatory Board airline fares consumer protection Etihad Airways Misleading Advertising
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

Dealership ordered to refund R323,950 for faulty car advertised in ‘excellent condition’

October 15, 2026

FSCA warns public about Telegram investment scams and fake refund claims

October 14, 2026

KFC’s ‘Only this Friday’ advert misled customers about meal deal availability dates

October 11, 2026
Leave A Reply Cancel Reply

Prove your humanity: 1   +   9   =  

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
Opinion
9 Mins Read

SAHRC vs Lagardien: The sign came down, but the principle stays up

By Sikhander CoopooOctober 15, 20269 Mins Read

On 6 October 2026, the Equality Court in Gqeberha handed down a judgment that many…

Dealership ordered to refund R323,950 for faulty car advertised in ‘excellent condition’

October 15, 2026

Lease, R228 million tender and assassination plots in Matlala’s mounting legal battles

October 15, 2026

Elections analyst surprised but not shocked by ANC ballot ruling, Terry Tselane defends IEC

October 15, 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

APRAV welcomes new RAF boss and rejects Road Accident Benefit Scheme revival plan

October 9, 2026

Business owner ordered to pay R200,000 for banning LGBTQ+ people from his shop

October 11, 2026

Tenant who withheld R1.4 million in rent, citing maintenance failures, ordered to leave property

October 13, 2026
© 2026 Conviction.
  • Home
  • Buy Now
  • Law & Justice

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