When a wireless plan continues providing data at sharply reduced speeds, what does “unlimited” communicate to consumers?
The Competition Tribunal has ruled against Rogers in a deceptive-marketing case concerning its Infinite wireless plans and ordered a $15 million administrative monetary penalty, according to the Competition Bureau.
The October 28 order also requires a corrective notice and payment of the Bureau’s legal costs. Detailed public reasons remain pending.
What the case concerns
The Bureau alleged that Rogers’ advertising created a misleading impression of unlimited data despite a substantial reduction in speed after a specified amount of usage.
The distinction is between continued connectivity and the service consumers understand the headline claim to promise.
Rogers says its plans eliminated overage fees, gave customers bill certainty and represented a positive development. The company stands behind its advertising and says it is considering next steps. That statement is not confirmation that an appeal has been filed.
Why the reasons will matter
The Bureau says the full reasons are expected within 10 business days. Until their public release, it would be premature to attribute a detailed analytical framework or penalty calculation to the Tribunal.
The eventual reasons should help practitioners assess how the Tribunal approached the advertising, its qualifications and the consequences for consumers.
The practical advertising question
For lawyers reviewing marketing claims, the case presents a familiar problem: a qualification may describe a limitation accurately while the main message conveys something broader.
That tension can arise in claims about speed, access, price, coverage or availability. The useful review question is what a prospective customer would understand before examining the technical detail.
The order is a confirmed outcome. The Tribunal’s complete public explanation is the next important development.
Sources: Competition Bureau statement · Canadian Press report · Rogers’ response · Tribunal decision page linked by the Bureau
Related coverage: Air Canada Pricing Appeal Puts Consumer Remedies Before Supreme Court.