CommTech newsletter July 2008
Are your advertisements misleading?
All advertisements must comply with the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) codes at all times and a recent ASA decision, which upheld a complaint made against Vodafone, shows how easy it is to breach the ASA code, despite efforts to the contrary.
A poster for Vodafone‘s internet service, made the statement “any website, any time, £7.50 a month. Make the most of it now.” There was also some small print in the bottom corner of the poster, stating that the offer was handset dependent and included 120MB UK data allowance per month.
The complainant claimed that the advertisement was misleading and it implied that Vodafone offered unlimited use for £7.50 a month. Vodafone claimed that they had given careful thought to the wording of their advertisement – but it seems that Vodafone was not careful enough, as the ASA upheld the complaint. The ASA considered that most consumers would understand the claim in the advertisement as meaning that internet access could be as often as they liked for £7.50 a month. The ASA considered that the disclaimer at the bottom of the advert was not prominent enough so as to avoid being overlooked and at the same time, it contradicted the impression created by the headline claim. It would have been less misleading if the information in small print was stated in, or next to the headline claim.
All marketers should check all claims made for accuracy and full compliance with the ASA code prior to publication.
Survey into the Unfair Contract Terms
The National Consumer Council (NCC) has continued its campaign against onerous terms in IT and user licence agreements with the publication of its findings following a survey conducted last year.
In April 2007, the NCC carried out a survey of 25 popular software products, aimed at assessing compliance with consumer protection regulations. Essentially, the NCC found that 14 out of the 25 products included no mention at all that installation of the software depended on the user accepting a licence agreement and that there was a lack of “up-front” information to consumers. The NCC also considered that there was a potential to mislead consumers in the way that the terms and conditions were presented to consumers, with these not being as user friendly as they could be. In addition to the accessibility of terms of conditions, these were also considered to include too much legal jargon, rather than using plain intelligible language.
The NCC’s study is notable for its insight into the types of terms and conditions that regularly fall foul of the relevant legislation. The study also highlights how software suppliers use complicated terms which mean little to the average consumer who has no specialist IT or legal knowledge. Consequently, the NCC has called upon the OFT to examine the potentially unfair contract terms identified in its report. The full report can be found on the NCC’s website at www.ncc.org.uk.
“Biggest military computer hack of all time” carried out by UK hacker
The Glasgow born UK hacker, Gary McKinnon, a systems analyst, has been accused of gaining access to 97 US military and Nasa computers from his London home.
The hacker, known as Solo, was arrested back in 2002, but was never charged in the UK. The ex Home Secretary John Reid granted the extradition request but lawyers argue that the move would have breached his human rights.
Mr McKinnon’s legal team argued at the High Court in 2007 that if extradited, he would face an unknown length of time in pre-trial detention, without the chances of any bail. They argued that he would face about a 45 year prison sentence and may not be allowed to serve part of it in the UK. However, two High Court judges said they could find no grounds for appeal.
Mr McKinnon has taken his fight to the House of Lords, where they will examine alleged threats by US authorities.
Mr Mckinnon has never denied accessing the computer networks between February 2001 and March 2002. He has always maintained that he was motivated by curiosity and was only able to get into the systems because of poor security.
Are you doing everything you can to comply with data protection requirements?
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has issued a good practice note explaining what organisations need to do in order to comply with the Data Protection Act 1998 when providing information about their employees under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, commonly known as TUPE. Although employers are required to disclose information about employees under TUPE, they must still take care to ensure that they comply with data protection principles at the same time.
You can find more information on handling requests for information in relation to employment records on the ICO website in its Employment Practices Code by following www.ico.gov.uk.
In addition to this, the ICO has issued another helpful good practice note on when data sharing takes place between different local authority departments. The guidance explains what local authorities need to consider in light of their data protection obligations when deciding whether to pass personal information fro one department to another within the same local authority.
Internet bloggers ordered to pay record amount of damages for internet libel
In a recent case Gentoo Group Ltd and Peter Walls issued claims against various individuals for setting up a website and chat room forum, on which they anonymously posted defamatory statements.
The defamatory postings were made over a two year period from 2004 to 2006 with the claims only being brought after a long investigation to see who was behind the website. In 2006, two of the defendants in the claim were found guilty of libel along with an injunction preventing them from repeating the defamatory allegations again.
Damages of £119,000 were awarded, these being the highest amount to date for an internet libel claim. The level of damages awarded serves as a warning to individuals who post defamatory comments on websites, or who wage a campaign of harassment over the internet and then assume that they can hide through remaining anonymous. This case illustrates how this is no longer the case and after careful investigation identities can be revealed.