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

Unisa Law Clinic launches drive for professional attire donations to support LLB students

July 26, 2026

Consumers warned against paying for misleading quick exit debt review promises

July 25, 2026

African Court urged to hold governments accountable for climate harm affecting children

July 25, 2026
Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
Trending
  • Unisa Law Clinic launches drive for professional attire donations to support LLB students
  • Consumers warned against paying for misleading quick exit debt review promises
  • African Court urged to hold governments accountable for climate harm affecting children
  • Screenshots are not evidence: The new frontier of unfair dismissal in South Africa
  • From rock samples to rocking the stage: Gavaza Mongwe advances to Mrs SA Top 30
  • Why the High Court sided with Ramaphosa in the Phala Phala impeachment battle
  • SCOPA chair Zibi says RAF’s declining performance triggered Parliament’s inquiry
  • D-day for law firm to repay R500 000 property deposit after holding money for nearly nine years
Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
ConvictionConviction
Sonneblom
  • Home
  • Law & Justice
  • Special Reports
  • Opinion
  • Ask The Expert
  • Get In Touch
ConvictionConviction
Home » Jetour’s R4,999 car deal ruled misleading for hiding 72-month term and 40% balloon payment
Consumer Protection Law

Jetour’s R4,999 car deal ruled misleading for hiding 72-month term and 40% balloon payment

Advertising regulator says consumers were left in the dark about crucial information behind the advertised monthly car instalment.
Kennedy MudzuliBy Kennedy MudzuliJune 9, 2026Updated:June 9, 2026No Comments
Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn WhatsApp Reddit Tumblr Email
Share
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest Email
  • The Advertising Regulatory Board upheld a complaint against a Jetour Dashing television advertisement.
  • The advertisement promoted a monthly repayment of R4,999 without disclosing a 72-month repayment term and a 40% balloon payment.
  • The regulator found the omission of these material finance terms breached advertising rules.

A television advertisement promoting the Jetour Dashing from R4,999 per month has been found misleading, with the Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB) ruling that consumers were not told the offer was based on a 72-month finance agreement and a 40% balloon payment.

The complaint was brought by a consumer who questioned how the advertised monthly instalment had been calculated. The commercial displayed the message, "Introducing the all-new Dashing from R4,999 pm", together with a statement that terms and conditions applied.

The complainant argued that viewers were not told what deposit was required, how long repayments would continue, or what amount would remain payable at the end of the finance agreement.

According to the complaint, consumers were left with unanswered questions about the true cost of the offer and the basis upon which the monthly repayment figure had been calculated.

Complaint considered without response

Jetour South Africa was allowed to respond to the complaint. However, despite attempts by the Advertising Regulatory Board to obtain a response, none was received.

The Directorate noted that Jetour is not a member of the Advertising Regulatory Board. While the ARB cannot issue binding sanctions against non-members, it may consider complaints and issue guidance to its members regarding whether advertisements should be accepted or withdrawn. The matter therefore proceeded based on the complaint and the advertisement itself.

Advertisement omitted information required by the Code

The Directorate considered the provisions of the Code of Advertising Practice dealing with misleading claims and motor vehicle advertising.

Clause 11.3 requires advertisements offering motor vehicles on a lease or finance basis to include full details of the payments to be made and explain how any residual value will be determined if ownership is obtained at the end of the agreement.

The Directorate quoted the Code, "Advertisements offering motor vehicles on a lease or rental basis should include full details on the payments to be made and the basis on which the residual value will be determined if ownership of the vehicle is obtained at the end of the agreement."

The central issue was whether the advertisement's reference to a monthly repayment of R4,999 was sufficient without disclosing the finance structure that produced that figure.

The Directorate found that the terms and conditions underlying the offer revealed that the repayment was based on a 72-month term and a 40% residual value. Neither of those details appeared in the television advertisement.

According to the ruling, "Clause 11.3 of the Code is clear that advertising stipulating a monthly price for a vehicle must also be transparent about the residual value and the number of payments to be made."

The Directorate also found that the necessary information could have been presented briefly and clearly within the advertisement itself.

Advertisement found misleading

The Directorate accepted that advertisers cannot include every term of a finance agreement in a television commercial. However, it found that the omitted payment information was material to consumers and expressly required by the Code.

The ruling states, "When it comes to the advertised price of a car repayment, it is insufficient for the advertiser to merely state that terms and conditions apply, as the deposit and residual are material factors in calculating the price… This payment information is expressly required by the Code."

It ultimately held, "The advertisement is therefore in breach of both Clause 4.2.1 of Section II and Clause 11.3 of Section III of the Code."

As a result, ARB members have been requested to refrain from accepting advertisements from the advertiser where payment-related terms and conditions are not expressly included or clearly presented within the advertisement.

Conviction.co.za

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

advertising law Advertising Regulatory Board consumer protection Jetour Vehicle finance
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

Consumers warned against paying for misleading quick exit debt review promises

July 25, 2026

Dealer cannot dictate repairs for defective vehicles; BMW buyer wins full refund

July 24, 2026

Kia Tasman advert leaves viewers thinking people have symptoms of a neurological disorder

July 18, 2026
Leave A Reply Cancel Reply

Prove your humanity: 4   +   7   =  

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
Special Reports
3 Mins Read

Unisa Law Clinic launches drive for professional attire donations to support LLB students

By Conviction Staff ReporterJuly 26, 20263 Mins Read

The Unisa Law Clinic is inviting donations of quality pre-loved business attire to help LLB students prepare for interviews, court observations and practical legal training.

Consumers warned against paying for misleading quick exit debt review promises

July 25, 2026

African Court urged to hold governments accountable for climate harm affecting children

July 25, 2026

Screenshots are not evidence: The new frontier of unfair dismissal in South Africa

July 24, 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

Judge dismisses bid to suspend attorneys over R23 million dispute, citing unfair investigation

July 22, 2026

Wedding rehearsal or workplace protest? Judge rules in favour of singing mineworkers

July 21, 2026

Labour Court stops municipal disciplinary hearing over AI citation concerns

July 22, 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