In more detail
In February 2024, the CCCS received several complaints about an online advertisement published by the filtration device retailer. The advertisement alleged that Singapore's tap water was unsafe for direct consumption if not filtered by the company's water purifiers.
One of the complaints was raised by Singapore's national water agency, the Public Utilities Board (PUB), which mentioned that the company repeatedly posted online content implying that tap water in Singapore was not safe for consumption. Such claims included attempting to mislead the public into thinking that Singapore's tap water contained harmful micro-organisms. PUB had previously issued a number of advisories to the company to emphasize that they should cease such misleading advertisement.
The CCCS conducted investigations into the company and found that the company had made other false and misleading representations on its website between February 2023 and March 2024, such as the following:
- Claiming that three models of air purifiers were made in Singapore when they were made in China
- Marketing two models of water purifiers as Korean when they were neither sourced from nor manufactured in Korea, but were in fact manufactured in China
- Offering false discounts, when the usual, pre-discounted prices that the company claimed for comparison had never in fact been offered to any customer
The company has issued a public apology and provided an undertaking that it will, among other things, carry out the following:
- Stop its unfair trade practices (e.g., false or misleading marketing) and put in place an internal compliance policy to ensure that its marketing materials comply with applicable laws
- Publish a public apology in relation to the advertisement in question on its website and social media channels for 30 days
- Cooperate with the Advertising Standards Authority of Singapore (ASAS) and other public agencies to resolve all complaints by consumers and public clarifications in relation to any advertisements found to be misleading
The company's directors have also given similar personal undertakings that they will not engage in any unfair trade practice, or facilitate the company to do so, in the future.
Key takeaways
This case underscores the firm stance that the CCCS takes against businesses that make false or misleading marketing claims. We have also observed that the undertakings provided by companies that have come under the CCCS' scrutiny have been becoming increasingly strict. For instance, a company that was found to have posted fake five-star reviews had to set up a feedback channel for customers to report fake reviews (see our client alert here). There appears to be a marked uptick in the CCCS' scrutiny in the advertising space.
Marketing and advertising is a crucial keystone of commerce, and businesses should ensure that their marketing practices comply with marketing and consumer protection laws to avoid similar scrutiny.
* * * * *
© 2024 Baker & McKenzie.Wong & Leow. All rights reserved. Baker & McKenzie.Wong & Leow is incorporated with limited liability and is a member firm of Baker & McKenzie International, a global law firm with member law firms around the world. In accordance with the common terminology used in professional service organizations, reference to a "principal" means a person who is a partner, or equivalent, in such a law firm. Similarly, reference to an "office" means an office of any such law firm. This may qualify as "Attorney Advertising" requiring notice in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
