RAW DATA: The ASA's 2degrees coverage ruling

DECISION 09/804 – TWO DEGREES MOBILE LTD: Website

The Two Degrees Mobile phone advertisement contained the claim: “We cover 97% of where New Zealanders live and work. Check our coverage maps.” A section under Coverage, FAQs said: “I hear you have a national roaming agreement with Vodafone. What does this mean? In the areas where we haven't yet built our network, we have partnered with Vodafone to provide a seamless service across New Zealand. You'll notice no difference in service or charges, but sometimes you may see Vodafone displayed on your mobile screen.”

The Complainant was of the view that the advertisement contained two misleading claims, “We cover 97% of where New Zealanders live and work” and “we have partnered with Vodafone to provide a seamless service across New Zealand” as they were unable to receive 2 Degrees mobile coverage where they lived, in an area of Wellington.

Code of Ethics, Rule 2
The Complaints Board was satisfied that the coverage provided by the Advertiser, in conjunction with Vodafone, was in fact over 97% of New Zealand. It was of the view that this claim was not misleading and not in breach of Rule 2 of the Code of Ethics.

The Complaints Board then noted where the advertisement said that “…we have partnered with Vodafone to provide a seamless service across New Zealand”. The Complaints Board considered the consumer take-out of this claim, and was of the view that consumers would understand the word ‘seamless’ to mean that 2 Degrees, through Vodafone, could provide coverage with no gaps, throughout the whole of New Zealand.

The Complaints Board turned to the response from the Advertiser and noted where it said in relation to this claim:

“…We have virtually 100% population coverage in the Cities (given that areas like Ohariu Valley are sparsely populated). However for the few areas in the Cities that do not have coverage on our network, customers cannot roam on Vodafone as the Vodafone network does not recognise them for roaming purposes.”

The Complaints Board noted where the Advertiser acknowledged that there were some areas in which they could not provide coverage to consumers. Accordingly it said that the claim of “seamless service across New Zealand” was likely to deceive or mislead consumers. It ruled that this claim was in breach of Rule 2 of the Code of Ethics.

The Complaints Board ruled to Uphold the complaint, in part, in relation to the claim of “seamless service across New Zealand”.

Decision: Complaint Upheld (in part)