dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
140
share rss forum feed

Rogers_Chris
VIP

join:2010-12-15
Toronto, ON

Clarification from Rogers_Chris

Folks, @Rogers_Chris here hoping to share our perspective on this case. We normally wouldn't comment on ongoing legal matters, but what's being disseminated and what's actually at issue seem to be two completely different things.

Our position is that we strongly support clear, accurate and consumer friendly advertising. We’re committed to truth in advertising and support legislation that prevents false claims and protects consumers, including the Competition Act. We're not challenging that fundamental principle.

We are also not asking for truth in advertising protections to be struck from the Act. Our position in this case is that the advertisements of Chatr were true and accurate in every respect and were supported by adequate and proper testing. Our argument is that two specific provisions of the Competition Act being relied upon by the Competition Bureau in this proceeding are constitutionally invalid.

They are:

1. We believe that the 2009 increase in the fines to $10 million and to $15 million for subsequent events makes this provision effectively criminal in nature (not civil) and so the rights and protections guaranteed under the Charter for criminal proceedings should apply.... for example, the presumption of innocence. We believe that is inappropriate to permit such large penalties under the civil provisions of the Act when parties don’t have the same rights and protections guaranteed under criminal proceedings. Those safeguards include: the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial and to make full answer and defense. Many commentators have raised concerns about this provision for this reason.

2. The requirement for what is called an `adequate and proper test', which requires such tests be performed before a company makes a performance claim. This has meant that advertisers, not just Rogers but also the individual business person as well as larger companies, could be prohibited from making perfectly true factual claims that are substantiated by well-established scientific principles, just because they hadn’t done testing.

I hope this helps give those interested in this case an idea of where we're coming from and what we're trying to argue for. Thanks for taking the time to hear us out.

@Rogers_Chris


nekkidtruth
YISMM
Premium
join:2002-05-20
London, ON
kudos:2
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·Rogers Hi-Speed
said by Rogers_Chris:

Folks, @Rogers_Chris here hoping to share our perspective on this case. ..............snipped the rest....................

Let's be realistic...no one really cares where Rogers is coming from. This uncaring attitude mainly stems from the years of screwing over your customers. If you're looking for sympathy, you probably won't find many people who would offer any.

Not that my opinion matters. Even if by some fluke Rogers was slapped with the fine and hand was slapped for lying, it would only be a matter of days before the entire thing disappeared. There are a lot of hands in Rogers' pockets.
--
Weeeeeee