Multiple US states open Facebook antitrust investigation

An investigation has commenced in the US into possible abuses of Facebook’s market dominance regarding data, advertising and consumer choice.

The leader of the investigation is New York Attorney General Letitia James, but she has got her contemporaries from Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, and the District of Columbia to muck in too. They all, apparently, are uneasy about the effect Facebook’s dominant market position has on all kinds of competition.

“Even the largest social media platform in the world must follow the law and respect consumers,” said James. “I am proud to be leading a bipartisan coalition of attorneys general in investigating whether Facebook has stifled competition and put users at risk. We will use every investigative tool at our disposal to determine whether Facebook’s actions may have endangered consumer data, reduced the quality of consumers’ choices, or increased the price of advertising.”

Yet to be announced by James, but widely reported nonetheless, is a parallel and similar investigation by the same AGs into Google. Of particular interest in both cases seems to be the digital advertising market, which is dominated in the US by the companies in question, as you can see from the chart below from eMarketer.

emarketer us digital ad spend

Since digital now accounts for the majority of ad spending it’s legitimate to be concerned about such a large market being dominated by so few players. Having said that it’s also reasonable to note that Google and Facebook have reached this position by competing in the open market and to the victor go the spoils. But however you achieve a dominant market position, once you do different rules apply to you and there’s plenty of precedent for such companies facing significant sanctions.

Is $170 million a big enough fine to stop Google privacy violations?

Another week has passed, and we have another story focusing on privacy violations at Google. This time it has cost the search giant $170 million, but is that anywhere near enough?

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has announced yet another fine for Google, this time the YouTube video platform has been caught breaking privacy rules. An investigation found YouTube had been collecting and processing personal data of children, without seeking permission from the individuals or parents.

“YouTube touted its popularity with children to prospective corporate clients,” said FTC Chairman Joe Simons. “Yet when it came to complying with COPPA [the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act], the company refused to acknowledge that portions of its platform were clearly directed to kids. There’s no excuse for YouTube’s violations of the law.”

Once again, a prominent member of the Silicon Valley society has been caught flaunting privacy laws. The ‘act now, seek permission later’ attitude of the internet giants is on show and there doesn’t seem to be any evidence of these incredibly powerful and monstrously influential companies respecting laws or the privacy rights of users.

At some point, authorities are going to have to ask whether these companies will ever respect these rules on their own, or whether they have to be forced. If there is a carrot and stick approach, the stick has to be sharp, and we wonder whether it is anywhere near sharp enough. The question which we would like to pose here is whether $170 million is a large enough deterrent to ensure Google does something to respect the rules.

Privacy violations are nothing new when it comes to the internet. This is partly down to the fragrant attitude of those left in positions of responsibility, but also the inability for rule makers to keep pace with the eye-watering fast progress Silicon Valley is making.

In this example, rules have been introduced to hold Google accountable, however we do not believe the fine is anywhere near large enough to ensure action.

Taking 2018 revenues at Google, the $170 million fine represents 0.124% of the total revenues made across the year. Google made on average, $370 million per day, roughly $15 million per hour. It would take Google just over 11 hours and 20 minutes to pay off this fine.

Of course, what is worth taking into account is that these numbers are 12 months old. Looking at the most recent financial results, revenues increased 19% year-on-year for Q2 2019. Over the 91-day period ending June 30, Google made $38.9 billion, or $427 million a day, $17.8 million an hour. It would now take less than 10 hours to pay off the fine.

Fines are supposed to act as a deterrent, a call to action to avoid receiving another one. We question whether these numbers are relevant to Google and if the US should consider its own version of Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

This is a course which would strike fear into the hearts of Silicon Valley’s leadership, as well as pretty much every other company which has any form of digital presence. It was hard work to become GDPR compliant, though it was necessary. Those who break the rules are now potentially exposed to a fine of €20 million or 3% of annual revenue. British Airways was recently fined £183 million for GDPR violations, a figure which represented 1.5% of total revenues due to co-operation from BA during the investigation and the fact it owned-up.

More importantly, European companies are now taking privacy, security and data protection very seriously, though the persistent presence of privacy violations in the US suggests a severe overhaul of the rules and punishments are required.

Of course, Google and YouTube have reacted to the news in the way you would imagine. The team has come, cap in hand, to explain the situation.

“We will also stop serving personalized ads on this content entirely, and some features will no longer be available on this type of content, like comments and notifications,” YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki said in a statement following the fine.

“In order to identify content made for kids, creators will be required to tell us when their content falls in this category, and we’ll also use machine learning to find videos that clearly target young audiences, for example those that have an emphasis on kids characters, themes, toys, or games.”

The appropriate changes have been made to privacy policies and the way in which ads are served to children, though amazingly, the blog post does not feature the words ‘sorry’, ‘apology’, ‘wrong’ or ‘inappropriate’. There is no admission of fault, simply a statement that suggests they will be compliant with the rules.

We wonder how long it will be before Google will be caught breaking privacy rules again. Of course, Google is not alone here, if you cast the net wider to include everyone from Silicon Valley, we suspect there will be another incident, investigation or fine to report on next week.

Privacy rules are not acting as a deterrent nowadays. These companies have simply grown too large for the fines imposed by agencies to have a material impact. We suspect Google made much more than $170 million through the adverts served to children over this period. If the fine does not exceed the benefit, will the guilty party stop? Of course not, Google is designed to make money not serve the world.

Google prefers cookies to fingerprints

Internet giant Google has announced some measures designed to better protect the privacy of users of its Chrome browser.

Under the heading of ‘Privacy Sandbox’ Google wants to develop a set of open privacy standards. At the core of this initiative is the use of cookies, which are bits of software that track people’s online activity and, so the theory goes, serve them more relevant advertising. Google concedes that some use of cookies doesn’t meet acceptable data privacy standards, but that blocking them isn’t the answer.

A major reason for this is that it encourages the use of another tracking technique called fingerprinting. This aggregates a bunch of other user preferences and behaviours to generate a unique identifier that performs a similar function to cookies. The problem with fingerprints, however, is that there’s no user control over them and hence they’re bad for data privacy.

Since the digital ad market now expects a considerable degree of targeting, but fingerprinting is considered an unacceptable solution to the blocking of cookies, Google wants to come up with a better one that will be implemented across all browsers, hence this initiative. The Privacy Sandbox is a secure environment designed to enable safe experimentation with other personalization technologies.

“We are following the web standards process and seeking industry feedback on our initial ideas for the Privacy Sandbox,” blogged Justin Schuh Director of Chrome Engineering at Google. “While Chrome can take action quickly in some areas (for instance, restrictions on fingerprinting) developing web standards is a complex process, and we know from experience that ecosystem changes of this scope take time. They require significant thought, debate, and input from many stakeholders, and generally take multiple years.”

While this is all laudable it should be noted that Google has possibly the greatest vested interest in optimising targeted advertising online. While that makes it perfectly understandable that it would want to take the initiative in standardizing the way it’s done, other big advertisers and browser providers may have reservations about surrendering much control of the process to Google.

EE grasses on Three UK for its 5G advertising

Three UK has run an ad campaign claiming its 5G network is the only ‘real’ one. Unsurprisingly other 5G providers are unhappy about this and at least one had complained.

The UK Advertising Standards Authority has been forced to take precious resource away from enforcing gender politics dogma to look into Three’s 5G ad campaign. The ASA confirmed to Telecoms.com that it has received six complaints about an ad by Three claiming to provide the only ‘real’ 5G, with one of them coming from BT.

We contacted EE, which provided the following statement: “Three’s claim to be the only real 5G network is entirely false, and deliberately aimed at misleading consumers. Our customers have been using real 5G since we launched the UK’s first 5G network, back in May.”

And, of course, we also spoke to Three UK, which gave us this statement: “Our advert is to inform consumers that we will offer the fastest 5G network, based on Three having three times as much 5G spectrum as any other operator. We are also the only operator to have 100 MHz of contiguous spectrum. ITU considers this the gold standard for 5G, enabling consumers to take full advantage of what 5G has to offer.”

It all seems to come down this 100 MHz contiguous block of spectrum and the value the ITU places on it in the context of 5G. Here’s a slide from a Nokia presentation titled Minimum Technical Performance Requirements for IMT-2020 radio interface(s) [i.e. 5G] that clearly state “The requirement for bandwidth is at least 100 MHz.” However it also states “The bandwidth may be supported by single or multiple RF carriers.”

Nokia IMT 2020 requirements slide

That caveat would appear to undermine Three’s claim that only its contiguous 100 MHz chunk meets the ITU’s minimum requirements. But when we put that to Three their spokesperson countered that, since carrier aggregation isn’t currently supported by 5G chipsets, that stipulation is irrelevant.

Three reckons this complaint is evidence that its competitors are worried about Three’s strong position in 5G spectrum, which is wonderfully ironic when you consider Three has spent a decade moaning about the opposite imbalance in 4G spectrum. Three is presumably OK with the situation now that things have apparently swung in its favour, so much so it was happy to provide us with a few slides.

The first offers a look at the current UK 5G spectrum situation, following the 3.4 GHz spectrum auction last year. Most of Three’s 5G spectrum is in the 3.6-3.8 GHz band, however, and we’re not sure what the ‘future’ bar signifies, but Three does seem to be at a distinct advantage. So much so that its competitors have apparent been moaning to Ofcom too, as quoted in the second Three slide. The last one represents the results of some Three testing, which is designed to show the unique download speed benefits of having 100 MHz of contiguous 5G spectrum.

Thee 5G slide 1

Thee 5G slide 2

Thee 5G slide 3

To be honest we find it hard enough to keep track of who has what spectrum, and why we should care, so we’re certainly not in a position to critique Three’s claims on a technical level. However they do seem to serve as a plausible defense of any claim it might make to have at least the potential to provide greater 5G download speeds than its competitors.

Where we still have some sympathy with the ASA complaint, however, is with the use of the term ‘real’. If Three had simply gone with ‘fastest’, as it did in the above statement, then EE probably wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. But by instead using the term ‘real’ Three seems to inferring rival 5G services are somehow illegitimate.

It will be down to the ASA to sift through the 5G standard, including the above ITU parameters, to determine whether or not only a 5G service that is able to call upon at least 100 MHz of contiguous qualifies. Since the ASA seems more concerned with thought policing these days we have to question whether it has retained the expertise needed to perform its supposedly core function.

Google is a social media addict and it has fallen off the wagon again

Googlers just don’t know when to give up when it comes to social media as the internet giant attempts to crack the market once again with Shoelace.

It’s been almost six months since the team decided to shut-down Google+ but the search behemoth hasn’t given up just yet. We’ve lost track at how many times Google has attempted to crack this lucrative market, and the latest attempt will put much more of a hyper-local twist on the social networking euphoria.

“Shoelace is a mobile app that helps connect people with shared interests through in person activities,” the team has written in the new platforms FAQs. “It’s great for folks who have recently moved cities or who are looking to meet others who live nearby.”

Coming out of Google’s Area 120, an experimental group within the R&D business, the team will look to create a platform which will focus on uniting people in local communities and neighbourhoods depending on their interests and experiences. It is a slightly different twist to and the Google team will be hoping its fifth time lucky as it attempts to crack the code.

Starting in New York with an invite-only private test, the platform will hope to push events out to users and encourage them to create their own. This might be as simple as checking to see if anyone within a five-minute walk would want to join a kick-about in the park, or it could be to promote a comedy-night in the local pub.

On the commercial side, it makes sense. Should Google be able to scale adoption to a suitable level there will certainly be demand from advertisers, from small pubs hoping to promote bingo to larger music venues hoping to sell tickets. However, if Google can’t convince enough users to engage with the platform, what’s the point.

This is where Google has struggled before; user adoption. Google+, Google Buzz and Google Friend Connect are all examples of platforms which failed because no-one actually used them aside from Google employees. Shoelace is the latest act of defiance from a company which does not know when to quit, and it is presenting a niche idea.

Users will be able to make use of a mapping feature to browse the local area for events, yoga in the park for instance, irrelevant as to whether they are connected to an individual who is attending or not. This is where it is slightly different from other platforms, it is activity driven not connection driven. This might sound like a good USP, but it relies on the assumption users will be OK spending their time with strangers.

Each time Google has attempted to crack the social media world, there seems to be a groan from the cynics and unimaginative who have decided there are enough social media platforms already. Google does not want to give up the potential gold-mine which is social media and the fortunes of competitors demonstrate why.

Alongside Google, Facebook is recognised as a leader in the world of online advertising. The core platform, as well as Instagram and WhatsApp, are making billions for Zucks and his cronies, but they are not alone. Twitter is starting to hoover up profits while Snap is looking like a genuine business and over in China, WeChat is perhaps the most complete offering around, combining social, communication, payments and eCommerce all in one place. You can see why Google has such a fascination with social media.

Samsung dropped in the deep-end for Aussie smartphone lies

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has opened up legal proceedings against Samsung suggesting it made false, misleading and deceptive claims over water resistance.

The claim from Samsung is a relatively simple one; S10 devices are IP68 water resistance, meaning the devices are good for up to 1.5 metres for a period of 30 minutes. Advertising for the S10 also depict a number of different scenarios from swimming pools to the beach, suggesting the device performs effectively in different environments.

The ACCC believes Samsung did not test or know of testing to substantiate these claims, and therefore mislead Australian consumers through more than 300 advertisements.

“The ACCC alleges Samsung’s advertisements falsely and misleadingly represented Galaxy phones would be suitable for use in, or for exposure to, all types of water, including in ocean water and swimming pools, and would not be affected by such exposure to water for the life of the phone, when this was not the case,” said ACCC Chair Rod Sims.

“Samsung itself has acknowledged that water resistance is an important factor influencing Australian consumer decisions when they choose what mobile phone to purchase.

“Samsung’s advertisements, we believe, denied consumers an informed choice and gave Samsung an unfair competitive advantage. Samsung showed the Galaxy phones used in situations they shouldn’t be to attract customers.”

Samsung Pool

Interestingly enough, Samsung seems to have dug itself into a whole with this one. Despite suggesting to the consumer on billboards, social media and TV advertising, a statement on its website confirms the images are misleading:

not advised for beach or pool use.

Interestingly enough, phones which had been advertised as water resistant were sold at a higher price. This is all well and good is you fancy taking your phone into the bath but don’t plan on living any form of Australian stereotype; no beaches and no pools for Samsung users.

Unfortunately for those who believe the advertising and don’t have the eagle eyes to spot small print on websites, Samsung also denied warranty claims for phones which were damaged when used in water.

Despite the fact Samsung has clearly misled consumers about the performance of S10 devices in non-fresh water, the firm is standing by its marketing and plans to fight the case. This is a slightly tricky area however, as there is some flexibility build into advertising rules. No-one expects to get a burger which matches the images on McDonald’s adverts, but this exaggeration is accepted.

Samsung might be able to squeeze out of this situation and consumers might continue to be lied to. That said, people should be able to put their phone down for a couple of minutes if they fancy a dip.

Samsung surfboard

UK steps up its consumer protection crusade

The UK government has announced it wants to give some regulators the power to fine companies unilaterally without involving the courts.

The main beneficiary of these proposed new powers will be the Competition & Markets Authority, which exists to regulate markets. The plan was unveiled by Business Secretary Greg Clark as outgoing Prime Minister Theresa May rushes through a bunch of commitments in an apparent bid to have something to show for her time in charge. Specifically this refers to claimed ‘loyalty penalties’ in which existing customers are given insufficient information about available deals.

A key part of this initiative seems to be to give the CMA the power to interpret and enforce the law itself, without needing to trouble the judiciary. Why the matter of a few punters paying a bit more for their utilities is a matter of sufficient gravity to suspend the rule of law is not made clear, but Clark seems to want the CMA and possibly other regulators to be able to fine companies whenever they feel like it.

The Government has already committed to legislate in order to give consumer enforcers the power to impose fines on companies for breaches of consumer law by applying to the courts,” wrote Clark in his letter to the CMA. “We will follow this through and also want to go further to ensure that enforcers have the powers they need to incentivise firms to comply with the law. This will include empowering the CMA to decide itself whether consumer protection law has been broken and then impose fines for wrongdoing directly.”

“I strongly believe that consumer loyalty should not be exploited and nor should consumers have to work so hard to get a fair deal,” said Clark in the press release of the announcement. “We have already shown our willingness to take action through our energy price cap, which means every household is protected from unjustified price rises.”

The system as it stands not only lets consumers down but it also lets down the vast majority of businesses who play by the rules,” said May. “It is high time this came to an end and today we are confirming our intention to give much stronger powers to the CMA, to strengthen the sanctions available and to give customers the protection they deserve against firms who want to rip them off.”

All this agonising over the plight of hapless UK consumers isn’t limited to the government. The Advertising Standards Authority thinks UK companies shouldn’t be allowed to portray claimed ‘gender stereotypes’ in their ads because they might cause some unspecified harm. Even the prospect of harm is now sufficient justification for state censorship, it seems.

“Our evidence shows how harmful gender stereotypes in ads can contribute to inequality in society, with costs for all of us,” said ASA boss Guy Parker. “Put simply, we found that some portrayals in ads can, over time, play a part in limiting people’s potential.  It’s in the interests of women and men, our economy and society that advertisers steer clear of these outdated portrayals, and we’re pleased with how the industry has already begun to respond”.

So we’re not even talking about harm here, just ‘playing a part in limiting people’s potential’. Parker is so concerned about this blight on UK society that he has sat on his claimed evidence for two years before acting. Here are the ‘outdated portrayals’ advertisers are no longer allowed to depict.

  • An ad that depicts a man with his feet up and family members creating mess around a home while a woman is solely responsible for cleaning up the mess.
  • An ad that depicts a man or a woman failing to achieve a task specifically because of their gender e.g. a man’s inability to change nappies; a woman’s inability to park a car.
  • Where an ad features a person with a physique that does not match an ideal stereotypically associated with their gender, the ad should not imply that their physique is a significant reason for them not being successful, for example in their romantic or social lives.
  • An ad that seeks to emphasise the contrast between a boy’s stereotypical personality (e.g. daring) with a girl’s stereotypical personality (e.g. caring) needs to be handled with care.
  • An ad aimed at new mums which suggests that looking attractive or keeping a home pristine is a priority over other factors such as their emotional wellbeing.
  • An ad that belittles a man for carrying out stereotypically ‘female’ roles or tasks.

That’s all nice and clear isn’t it? Presumably it’s OK to have a bloke doing the washing up in an ad, or a woman chopping down a tree, so long as it’s not also considered to be taking the piss. It looks like ads now have to feature unattractive people being fancied by everyone, but it’s unclear whether beautiful people are allowed to be fancied too. Lastly the ASA advises that banned gender stereotypes are allowed as a means to challenge their negative effects, so the Gillette ad below is presumably OK.

At this rate it’s possible to imagine a time when no UK consumers will ever come to any harm whatsoever and everyone will be free to explore their full potential, unencumbered by dispiriting imagery. Anyone who has a problem with UK agencies unilaterally fining and censoring companies in the name of the public good clearly doesn’t understand the danger we’re in.

 

Huawei launches UK charm offensive while US President Trump is in town

Embattled Chinese vendor Huawei has picked the middle of the US President’s visit to launch an ad campaign highlighting how important it is to the UK.

The new Huawei UK corporate ad campaign is themed: ‘A Fully Connected Britain is a Fully United Britain’ (see poster below). While there’s plenty of evidence on the internet and especially social media to call that claim into question, the point Huawei is presumably trying to make is that the country would be worse off without Huawei’s help in building its networks.

Huawei says it has played a pivotal role in helping to shape the UK’s digital future since 2001. The campaign claims Huawei contributes £1.7 billion of value to the UK economy, including 26,000 jobs and £470 million of tax revenues. The two points about the importance of connectivity and Huawei’s contribution to the UK economy are quite distinct, but the purpose of this campaign seems to be to conflate them.

“We have operated in the UK since 2001 and supply all the major telecom operators with our products and solutions,” said Jerry Wang, Huawei’s UK CEO. As long-term investors we are committed to helping create jobs and opportunities, building partnerships and supporting local communities across the UK.”

It surely can’t be a coincidence that this campaign is being launched on the second day of US President Trump’s state visit to the UK. The Prez is expected to pressure UK leaders into taking a harder line against Huawei than they currently seem inclined to and Huawei is sensibly getting its retaliation in first.

Whether a bunch of posters going on about how great it is will do Huawei any good is another matter, however. While Huawei has doubtless been an important contributor to the UK economy, there are plenty of other networking vendors to choose from. More importantly, Trump knows he’s in a strong negotiating position as the UK is desperate to foster closer ties with non-European countries thanks to Brexit.

Trump has been downplaying the prospect of pressuring the UK in his public statements, but it’s hard to see how he would be happy with anything short of an outright ban of Huawei gear in the 5G network. The issue has become symbolic of the strength of the relationship between the US and its allies and UK leaders may well end up concluding the value of staying in Trump’s good books is considerably more than £1.7 billion.

Huawei UK ad small

YouTube censorship contributes to disappointing Google numbers

Google holding company Alphabet saw its share price fall by 8% after it announced disappointing Q1 numbers.

The company was fairly elusive about the reasons for a deceleration in its revenue growth on the subsequent revenue call, but many commentators picked up on comments around YouTube as significant.

“YouTube’s top priority is responsibility,” said Google CEO Sundar Pichai. “As one example, earlier this year YouTube announced changes that reduce recommendations of content that comes close to violating our guidelines or that misinforms in harmful ways.”

“…while YouTube Clicks continue to grow at a substantial pace in the first quarter, the rate of YouTube Click growth decelerated versus what was a strong Q1 last year reflecting changes that we made in early 2018, which we believe are overall additive to the user and advertiser experience,” said CFO Ruth Porat.

At least one analyst on the call expressed frustration at the lack of further clarity on the reasons why Google’s revenues aren’t what they expected them to be, but the YouTube stuff seems fairly self-explanatory. Pichai made it clear that YouTube is all about reducing perceived harmful content on the platform, while Porat referred to changes made at YouTube in early 2018.

So what were those changes? To YouTubers they were one of many wholesale restrictions on the types of content that are monetised (i.e. have ads served on them), broadly referred to as ‘adpocalypse’. Every now and then a big brand found its ads served against content it disapproved of, resulting in it pulling its ads from YouTube entirely. In the resulting commercial panic YouTube moved to demonetize broad swathes of content.

While this is an understandable immediate reaction to a clear business threat, it also undermines the central concept of YouTube, which is to provide a platform for anyone to publish video. On top of that YouTube increasingly censors its platform, including closing comments, tweaking the recommendation algorithm and sometimes even banning entire channels. These restrictions must surely have contributed to the amount of ad revenue coming in, but Google seems to have decided it’s worth it to keep the big brands sweet.

Here’s some further analysis from prominent YouTuber Tim Pool followed by an example of just the kind of indie creativity YouTube has built its success on (which, to be fair, doesn’t seem to have been demonetised this time). A move towards favouring big corporates over independent producers is a much bigger risk than you might imagine for YouTube, as Google’s disappointing Q1 numbers imply.

 

UK advertising watchdog ties itself in knots over broadband marketing

The UK Advertising Standards Authority has ruled that Vodafone’s ‘Gigafast’ service was misleading because some people might reckon that means 1 Gbps.

In reality the brand referred to a range of broadband packages, the fastest of which could still only manage an average of 900 Mbps. Virgin Media thought this was a bit cheeky and so grassed Vodafone up to the ASA, which today upheld the complaint on the grounds that, while some people wouldn’t read much into it, some punters might reckon they would be getting at least 1 Gbps when they weren’t.

“The ASA considered that many consumers would likely understand the prefix ‘Giga’ to be a hyperbolic description of speed, and would therefore generally understand ‘Gigafast’ internet was very fast broadband,” satated the ruling. “However, we considered that a significant proportion of consumers would have sufficient knowledge of broadband terminology to understand Gigafast Broadband as a reference to a service capable of providing speeds of 1 Gbps (1000 Mbps).”

Contrast this with the ASA’s previous ruling on the use of the term ‘fibre’ in broadband marketing. Its conclusion in that case was that hardly anyone would think fibre meant 100% fibre, so it’s fine to just chuck the term around even if loads of the connection was actually over copper. How come people understand giga to mean 1000 Mbps but don’t think fibre means fibre?

To be fair to the ASA there was an additional complicating factor in this case, which is that Vodafone apparently kept banging on about the £23 price point in its Gigafast marketing, when that price only gets you an average speed of 100 Mbps, with the 900 Mbps one costing £48 per month. That seems to be the thing that the ASA most objected to, implying it’s fine with a 900 Mbps average service being called gigafast despite having previously ruled that ‘up to’ claims weren’t allowed.

“Although we considered that the website made clear that Vodafone Gigafast referred to a range of packages which were not all capable of providing 1Gbps, because it implied that consumers could get a service that offered speeds of 1Gbps for £23 per month, when that was not the case, we concluded that it was likely to mislead,” concluded the ruling.

The ASA seems to be increasingly confused about broadband marketing. It seems fine with labelling a package of services, the fastest of which only averages 900 Mbps, as Gigafast and with calling a partly copper connection fibre. At the same time it objects to the use of ‘up to’ in describing broadband speeds and is touchy about ambiguous pricing claims. It needs to either be laissez faire or authoritarian, but right now it seems to jump between those positions on a case by case basis.