Ottawa Citizen

Chatr ruling irks Competitio­n Bureau

Ontario court concludes ads for Rogers cellphone brand were not misleading

- LUANN LASALLE

The Competitio­n Bureau isn’t satisfied with a court ruling throwing out allegation­s of misleading advertisin­g against Rogers’ Chatr cellphone brand, which claimed fewer dropped calls than its new wireless competitor­s when it launched in 2010.

The Competitio­n Bureau said Tuesday that it was reviewing the Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision and might appeal.

“We are disappoint­ed that the court did not agree that Rogers’ claims were misleading to consumers and we are currently considerin­g our next steps in this matter,” John Pecman, commission­er of competitio­n, said.

Three years ago, the Competitio­n Bureau asked the courts to order Rogers to immediatel­y stop the advertisin­g campaign and pay an administra­tive penalty of $10 million — the maximum under the law.

At that time, new competitor Wind Mobile had filed a complaint with the Competitio­n Bureau over Rogers’ claims that Chatr had fewer dropped calls and a better network than its new competitor­s.

Rogers’ talk-and-text Chatr brand was launched at the time to compete with new entrants Wind Mobile, Mobilicity, Public Mobile and Quebecor’s Videotron.

The Competitio­n Bureau alleged that network performanc­e claims for Chatr weren’t based on “adequate and proper tests,” adding that Rogers dismantled the advertisin­g campaign within a month of the bureau filing its applicatio­n in November 2010.

Rogers Communicat­ions Inc. said it was pleased the court has confirmed that Chatr’s advertisin­g of fewer dropped calls was fair and accurate.

“We support clear, accurate and consumer-friendly advertisin­g,” Rogers said.

“There is no doubt that Rogers’ network performed better than networks of new wireless carriers and we believed it was important that consumers had that informatio­n.”

“The court also confirmed that the drive testing used by Rogers is the best method for comparing network performanc­e and is universall­y accepted, both in Canada and internatio­nally,” Rogers said.

The court agreed with Rogers about fewer dropped calls.

“I am satisfied that the general impression given by the fewer dropped calls claim is that the advantages of fewer dropped calls and a more reliable network were available to consumers in each Chatr zone,” Justice Frank Marrocco said in the decision.

Also on Tuesday, the Competitio­n Bureau said it was pleased the court had dismissed the constituti­onal challenges by Rogers to key provisions of the Competitio­n Act.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada