WHAT IS BAIT ADVERTISING?
Simply put, bait advertising is when a company attracts customers with the offer of products that they can not actually supply. As the name suggests, the customers are lured by the bait in the hope that they will purchase other products.
Using an example, let’s say a company places an ad for 5c ice-creams, but when the customer arrives at the store they are told that there are not any 5c ice-creams, but there are other more expensive ice-creams available for sale. Since the customer wants ice-cream and has made the effort to get to the store, there is a good chance they will make a purchase.
Bait advertising is not limited to blatant lying and also covers incidences where there is no reasonable expectation of the product being supplied. For example, the ice-cream store may have only had enough supply to sell five 5c ice-creams, so technically they haven’t lied. But in reality, they full well know that they can not service all the expected customers and this is a deception which they are accountable for.
The Trade Practices Act 1974 requires businesses to have enough stock to meet demand on advertised products. Honest mistakes caused by unpredictable consumer demand are not penalised, but if a business knowingly does not have enough stock then they are subject to the law.
If there is limited stock or a limited time period for the sale, this must be displayed in the advertisement. Statements such as ‘while stocks last’ or ‘limited offer’ could attract scrutiny if demand is not met, and businesses found guilty of breaking ‘bait advertising’ laws could be facing a maximum $50,000 penalty from the ACCC.
CASE STUDIES
The majority of bait advertising convictions have been against retail outlets, although there have been a few in other areas. Breaches of ‘bait advertising’ laws are generally much easier to identify if the business is in the retail industry, since their operations involve the supply of physical products to consumers.
In 2005, the ACCC investigated Repco for breaches of the trade practices act. They had advertised five products in their sales catalogue at discounts of up to 92% when more than 1/3rd of stores across the country did not have any of the products stocked. Plus almost all of the remaining stores that did stock the product had sold out within the first day.
Repco was severely punished over the incident, being forced to publicly apologise and publish an article in an Australia motor magazine. They also entered into a trade practices compliance program and were made to alternative stock or a $100 discount voucher to customers who made written complaints to either Repco or the ACCC.
Harvery Norman is another big company to face the wrath of the ACCC over bait advertising claims. They were consumed in a four year legal battle that cost them over $1 million when they failed to remove sold out stock from their catalogues and continued to advertise them for sale although they could not supply the product.
CREDIT CARD TRICKS
Proving that a company selling credit cards is involved in bait advertising is far more difficult. Besides the plastic card they send in the mail, the credit card is more of a service than a product. It is impossible not to be able to supply the credit card and in the rare case that they have run out of the plastic cards to send, they can escape the ‘bait advertising’ laws by promising to send the card when they have more stock.
The credit card terms and conditions state that the card provider can change interest rates, points programs, rewards and fees at any time. This provides an easy avenue for banks and other credit card providers to change the contract terms if they do not want to meet the original deal that the credit card was promoted with.
With the credit card providers able to change terms and conditions at any time, they are seemingly able to promote a card with all sorts of special deals or low rates and then immediately change the terms once the customer has accepted the card. Unfortunately for the Australian public, these credit card schemes are becoming all too common.
ILLEGAL ACTIVITY
This sort of activity is now being investigated, as it has been deemed to be bait advertising. Credit card providers fall under the jurisdiction of ASIC, which has its own legislation prohibiting bait advertising, specifically Section 12DG of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001.
Aussie Credit Cards recently came under the ASIC microscope when they advertised a low ongoing rate of 9.99% on their credit card. The advertisement started in early May and continued until late June, although they had made a decision in early June to increase the rate of the card to 13.99% in early August. Knowing full-well that customers would only receive the low rate for less than a month, Aussie continued to advertise the cards.
Aussie had not misled or failed to disclose the facts in their advertising, rather ASIC had a problem with the timeframe and the fact that the customers would only receive the low rate for less than a month. Aussie has now agreed to write to all affected customers and to keep them on the low rate for at least six months.
Having regard to the nature of the market and the nature of the advertisement, Section 12DG of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 requires that an advertised financial service at a specified price should be offered at that price for a sufficiently reasonable period.
The legislation is clearly meant to provide protection for consumers from these bait advertising tactics. What is unclear though is what timeframe is considered ‘sufficiently reasonable’. The legislation is deliberately vague incase a massive economic change requires a prompt change in the terms and conditions on credit cards, but a minimum time frame should still be set to protect consumers.
Does the Aussie decision mean that ASIC feels that six months is the minimum time before a credit card company may change their rates and terms? With all of the hassles associated with changing a credit card provider, there are calls for credit card providers to be forced to meet their advertising claims for a minimum of one year.
