Leisure (Restaurant)

The advertisement was a poster on the window of the restaurant and promoted the opening of the restaurant. The advertisement appeared in both English and Chinese and included the following:

“Grand Opening”

“50% off all day from 11am to 11pm”

Two complaints were received against the advertisement. The complainants stated that the promotion promised “50% off all day”. They claimed that this reasonably would have led consumers to have expected an immediate discount. However, upon payment, the complainants were charged full price and informed that the offer applied only as a voucher for a future visit. The complainants noted that no terms and conditions or reference to a rebate were stated on the advertisement, and that the wording in both English and Chinese suggested a same-day discount. The complainants further stated that the advertisers’ later explanation of a rebate did not align with the original advertising, which implied that the 50% reduction would apply on the day of purchase.

One complainant added that the advertisement had subsequently been amended by the addition of a small notice outlining the rebate nature of the promotion. However, they did not consider that the amendment matched the original claim of ‘50% off all day from 11am to 11pm.’

The advertisers responded that they intended to offer a 50% promotion on all orders on their opening day. However, the offer was intended to operate as a rebate rather than an immediate discount. They said that, for example, a customer who spent €10 would receive €5 off their next purchase when returning to the restaurant.

Complaint Upheld

The Independent Complaints Council considered the detail of the complaint.

The Council noted the intention of the promotion was to offer a rebate of 50% off on future visits to the restaurant, however, they considered that the inclusion of the opening date together with the statement “50% off all day” created a clear impression that there would be an immediate “50% off all day” discount for the grand opening. Therefore, the Council considered that a consumer would likely have understood the offer applied at the point of purchase on that day. Given the absence of qualifying terms and conditions, such as a reference to a voucher or deferred discount, the Council considered that the advertising was likely to mislead consumers as to the nature of the promotion.
The Council concluded that the advertisement was in breach of Code Sections 4.1 and 5.5 of the Code.

Action Required: The advertisement must not reappear in its current form.