On March 5th, 2025, the Ethics' Jury [the first instance decision-making body of the Portuguese Advertising Self-Regulator (ARP – Autorregulação Publicitária)] issued a ruling against MEO, a popular and well-known telecommunications service provider based in Portugal, finding that MEO's advertising for their "TV+Net+Voice" service pack, did not comply with ethical standards and constituted a misleading commercial practice and, therefore, could no longer be aired. Despite the disagreement expressed by MEO, the Appeals Committee later confirmed the decision, in a case for transparency in advertising pricing practices.
The Facts
The case began with the submission of a consumer complaint alleging MEO's Facebook and Instagram advertisement omitted crucial pricing details that influenced the decision to contract the services. Specifically, the complainant illustrated how MEO was announcing a "TV+Net+Voice" service pack from €29.49/ month, omitting that price (€29.49) was only applicable for the first 4 months of a 24-month long contract. Afterwards, the pack price would increase to €42.49 for the remaining 20 of the total 24 months. In the opinion of the complainant, such omission led reasonably informed and aware consumers to believe that the €29.49 price would be the base price for the entire duration of the contract – to which additional services could be added, henceforth increasing the price charged by the services.
MEO defended this practice by stating that the relevant ads included the caveat "from" (reading, thus, "from €29.49/month"), which implied variability. Additionally, MEO argued that the social media ads should not be viewed as complete commercial communications on their own, as they contained links to a webpage with all relevant information for concluding the contract, including detailed pricing. Therefore, MEO contended that the ads were not misleading. Furthermore, the company argued that this advertising practice is lawful and commonly used by telecommunications companies in Portugal.
The Decision
The Ethics' Jury concluded for the Consumer. Firstly, despite recognizing that the expression "from" can be understood literally by the average consumer, who is reasonably attentive, enlightened, and informed, it argued it would, however, most certainly not be interpreted as a price that applies only for a few months of the contract, but rather as a hypothetical monthly fee for a basic service package. Secondly, the Jury also noted that advertisement could not be argued to constitute "incomplete commercial communication" that consumers must read in conjunction with other documents, as claims in advertising bind the advertiser to the terms contained therein, contrary to the arguments put forth by MEO. In reality, the Jury framed it as "entirely possible" that a consumer might read the advertisement and begin the process of concluding the contract, motivated by the price displayed in the publication. Consequently, the Ethics' Jury ruled in favor of the consumer, deciding that the advertisement should not be reinstated.
The analysis of the facts and the presented documentation lead both the first instance and the Appeal's Committee to consider that it was evident that the advertising message in question contained incorrect and misleading information. In fact, the average consumer would interpret the advertisement as offering a base (or basic) telecom services pack for (at least) €29.49 per month. This interpretation does not align with the reality, as both parties agree that the base price of the package is €42.49 per month, with a €13.00 discount applied for the first 4 months of the 24-month minimum contract duration.
Takeaways
Despite MEO's defense that their advertisements included the expression "desde" ("from") and links to detailed pricing information, the ARP concluded that the advertisements presented misleading information. The decision highlighted that the general public interprets the term "from" as indicating a minimum price to which additional services can be summed. In the context of telecommunications service contracts, such advertising suggests that the service provider offers at least a basic pack of telecommunication services at the stated monthly price.
These decisions may prompt other telecommunications companies in Portugal to reassess their advertising standards to ensure compliance with ethical standards. This conclusion may be extrapolated to other industries that use similar "from" pricing strategies capable of misleading consumers
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
