NZ Business Fined For Out-of-Date Website

Peter writes "A story reports that a restaurant in New Zealand has been fined NZ$3000 for failing to keep its website up to date. By having out-of-date menus and prices on its website, it has breached the Fair Trading Act, according to the New Zealand Commerce Commission."

Comments

Nonsense

[Stevyn]

The fact that it's on the Internet is moot; it's false advertising. Simply that.

Re:Nonsense

[nacturation]

I'd take exception to this if it were just a matter of the owner once having a website done up and then forgot about it. But the restaurant was warned not only by the customer who complained but also by the restaurant assocation. Even after all that, nothing was done. So it's clearly false advertising.

And, once again, this has *nothing* to do with my rights online. How's that Legal section coming along, Taco?

Re:Nonsense

[__aadhrk6380]

Amen!

If you advertise rates and don't meet them, you're wrong. I can understand "forgetting" to update your site, but once someone told you about it and it still goes uncorrected? There has to be some responsibility on the part of the advertisor (regardless of the medium) to make things right. Internet ads still account for billions of dollars world wide, and this is no different than a regular print or TV ad.

There have to be warnings in place prior to sanctions - Again, there is always the possibility of an oversight, especially in the case of a company that doesn't use the web as their primary advertising method, but once notified, fix it for Gods sake!

I was ready to come down hard here, but after I RTFA, I don't have a problem with this.

Re:Nonsense

[mikeswi]

I had nearly the same thing happen to me yesterday as the customer in that story. For some reason, I woke up with a craving for a surf & turf omelette (grilled shrimp + steak strips). So I looked up the web site of this place in Tybee Island, GA where I used to have those.

The web site still lists Surf & Turf omelettes on the menu. So I drove all the way there (2 hour drive. Believe me, those omelettes are worth it. They also make the best damned cup of coffee in North America) just to find that shrimp are out of season and so they didn't have any to make a surf & turf.

Maybe I should email them a link to this story and a link to their own menu. That was pretty annoying.

Re:Nonsense

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

False advertising on the Internet is still false advertising, no new laws are needed, it is illegal in any medium. In general things illegal in one medium are illegal in all, unless the law specifies otherwise.

This isn't a rights or "Internet" or online case primarily, it is a case of false representations that happened to be on the Internet. Not fundamentally different than if it had been in a newspaper or radio ad, or a billboard, etc.

Re:Nonsense

[brilinux]

Yeah, then maybe Slashdot would get fined for all those dupes and old stories.

Re:Nonsense

[luvirini]

There are different levels of false advertising.

The people who put up that website should have just put in 5 point font a "valid until YYYY" like you do with any print ad. When doing any sort of advertising people should really think of the limitations of what they offer and spell them out clearly. The problem is that many people do not think of a webpage with the same througness as they do an ad in a newspaper.

Re:Nonsense

[aussie_a]

I think he's kidding. Congress tends to have a habit of passing laws when it comes to the internet. X is illegal, but congress still passes a law defining X online as illegal ;)

Re:Nonsense

[ratsnapple tea]

Thanks, Ayn. I'll see your hypothetical and raise you this: If you live in a country without adequate consumer-protection laws, how many times will you get burned before you decide to move to a place where you have legal protections against this sort of stuff?

Libertarian paradises, where they have existed, have tended to be almost as horrible places to live as communist paradises. People don't just vote with their wallets; they vote with their feet too.

Re:Nonsense

[mr_zorg]

And, once again, this has *nothing* to do with my rights online. How's that Legal section coming along, Taco?

Stretch your imagination a little. It has to do with your right to accurate pricing/advertising online. Therefore, your rights online.

Re:Nonsense

[hunterx11]

Even Ayn Rand wanted fraud to be illegal. GP is just a troll.

Re:Nonsense

[Coryoth]

Alternatively you can just point out that free markets tend to work best when the parties involved in a transaction have as information as possible. Introducing false information distorts transactions and harms the efficiency of the free market. Requiring truth in avertising is helping the maximise the efficiency of the market.

Jedidiah.

Re:Nonsense

[nacturation]

If I had to stretch my imagination for every story like this, my brain would look like the goatse guy.

Re:Nonsense

[whathappenedtomonday]

False advertising on the Internet is still false advertising

you mean things like "news for nerds, stuff that matters", right?

Re:Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

Would an old 1973 catalogue also be false advertizing? See, the law *does* have to specify whether a webpage can be just like a printed catalogue, accurate only at the time of publication.

Re:Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a naive comment. Firstly, consumer-protection laws are a recent innovation, legally speaking, and when first implemented (the early 1900s in the US) varied widely in their scope and degree of enforcement, not only between (for example) the US and Europe, but among the several United States. No historian worthy of the name has suggested any significant migration patterns in 1900s America driven by varying levels of consumer protection law. I think just stating the proposition out loud like that is more likely to provoke ha-ha than a-ha.

Secondly, I defy you to actually name a libertarian paradise or otherwise provide evidence for your wild general assertion, not to even mention your contradiction of the much milder assertion (which the parent made) that "consumer protection" laws that significantly compromise freedom of speech and freedom of contract in the name of "the truth" (and what is truth, eh, Pilate?) are worth the inevitable social cost.

Just try asking yourself what "truth in advertising" would do to your dating life. Or imagine if the government could force you to defend (at enormous expense) any minor random claim you made about your nifty new software any time they wanted to. ("More secure than Windows!" Oh yeah? Prove it! Time to write a few $1 mil checks to the lawyers. . .) The legal costs for entrepreneurship would just soar out of sight. You forget that safe consumers without successful vendors is just another name for a Neanderthal society. If you want daring business innovation, you have to accept the occasional consumer fraud. Frequently enough, the difference between a really clever idea and a really sneaky scam is damn hard to detect ahead of time, when you're drafting the laws.

No one likes being lied to, but if it does happen, the socially efficient solution is either voting with your wallet, or with your feet (as you say, amongst other grandious silliness), or at most a private claim for damages based on a breach of explicit or implied contract. Inviting government oversight of even the most tenuous implied contract is a recipe for statist disaster.

Some things are indeed best left to individual negotation and common bloody sense.

Re:Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a completely ass-backwards understanding of economics. Free markets cause informed consumers, not vice versa. What, you think capitalism doesn't work unless and until everyone tells a close approximation to the truth? That's nuts. If that were true, we'd still be living in caves. Humans are not by nature honest with each other.

Indeed, buyers and sellers have every motivation to lie to each other, and will do so in an unfree (e.g. Soviet) market as much as possible. But in a free market, entrepreneurs can easily drive liars out of business simply by hewing closer to the truth, because it's an obvious fact of economics that most business is repeat business, and an obvious fact of psychology that no one likes doing business with a liar.

Put it another way: adding false information to a product is just selling an inferior product. In a free market someone can and will come along and sell the same product without attaching a false information "feature." Then, with his "better quality" product he'll drive you out of business in no time. He'll have great fun and much success pointing out your lies in his own advertising. That is exactly what happens in modern American advertising. You can always count on Chevy to point out where Ford stretches the facts, or on Microsoft to keep the consumer thoroughly informed of the drawbacks of Mac OS X or Linux. These forces are far more powerful at keeping corporations honest than any fiddling oversight by the government.

Honesty naturally evolves in a free market because it is the only way for a business to survive in the long run. When markets are not free, public honesty tends to suffer greatly.

Re:Nonsense

[awol]

"Alternatively you can just point out that free markets tend to work best when the parties involved in a transaction have as information as possible"

Not just tend, but information is necessary for the existence of a free market. Indeed one of the most valid criticisms of free market microeconomics (well even macro actually) is the assumption about perfect information. Without it, the market cannot be free.

Re:Nonsense

[Joe Random]

Consider if someone prints an ad in a magazine and then that magazine is found a year later in an office somewhere and the prices again are off. Should they be at fault?

Of course not. But then again, it's not possible for a business to change the content of all of their magazine ads with the click of a button. This situation is more like a business failing to change the prices on the billboard outside of their establishment.

Re:Nonsense

[Midnight Thunder]

It is probably laziness, but if the restaurant owner does not want to spend time updating the web site, then (s)he should not present information that is likely to go out of date.

Re:Nonsense

[grahamm]

Or if it was a delivery? If the web page says your pizza will cost £10.00, would you be happy if the delivery boy wants £12.00 when he brings it?

Re:Nonsense

[sharkey]

Of course they do. SOMEONE has to think of the children, after all!

Re:Nonsense

[d34thm0nk3y]

I think he's kidding. Congress tends to have a habit of passing laws when it comes to the internet. X is illegal, but congress still passes a law defining X online as illegal ;)

You forgot the part where they make the punishment twice as bad in the process...

Re:Scary

[Shachaf]

As long as you don't sell things and claim they cost less than they actually do, there shouldn't be a problem.

Good thing that Slashdot...

[aapold]

isn't based in New Zealand. Hell they'd have locked up half the crew by now....

this happened to my dad's engineering company

[CAIMLAS]

This happened to my dad's small engineering company. He had the phrase "engineers" on the site, when in fact there was a single engineer (PE) and an EIT (engineer in training) who was weeks away from becoming a full-fledged engineer.

I think the state board of licensure fined him something around $50,000? Absolutely rediculous. Granted, the head of the board was the engineer for a competing company I believe, so there might've been other motivations... stupid small states.

Re:this happened to my dad's engineering company

[__aaclcg7560]

I think the state board of licensure fined him something around $50,000? Absolutely rediculous.

Actually, it's not that uncommon. Most states' engineering license board will go to extreme lengths to protect the "engineer" name (and collect the fines) if the individual or company is not a licensed engineer (typically, a civil engineer).

The state of Texas wanted individuals who are software engineers to be licensed professional engineers or stop using the word "engineer" entirely. A brief summary is here. It's both a snobbery thing (e.g., my engineering degree is better than yours) and a revenue enchancement thing (e.g., state got to get the money somehow). Either way, you're screwed if you're in the middle.

Re:this happened to my dad's engineering company

[aussie_a]

Yes but perhaps there were two engineers at one stage. Or perhaps it was a simple typo. There needs to be room for people to make honest mistakes and give them a chance to correct the mistake, and then there has to be the chance to punish those that act unethically.

If the company had the mistake brought to their attention and they refused to fix it, the fine would be justified. But to just whip out a massive fine for an honest mistake, that's ridiculous (in my opinion).

We aren't machines. We make mistakes. I think there should be room for us to make honest mistakes. A simple "How many engineers do you have?" "1" "But your site says engineers as in plural" "oh thankyou for pointing out that mistake, we'll fix it immediately" *it's fixed that week*. And it's nothing like the situation described in the article.

Re:this happened to my dad's engineering company

[Pxtl]

Well then, why don't we start calling police officers "lawyers", and military aircraft pilots "commandoes".

The word Engineer means something. It denotes a level of legal and professional obligation to one's work that does not necessarily exist in other careers. When an individual software developer becomes personally legally responsible for the performance of his company's product, then he can call himself an engineer.

That kind of legal liability don't sound fun? Well then, don't be champing at the bit to get to call yourself "engineer". Its not a snobbery thing, its a safety thing: a person knows that, if they hire an engineer to do something, then they're legally required to stand behind their work. As such, certain jobs require an Engineer, not an "engineer" - this is much like how a person can have a doctorate in biology and extensive medical knowledge, but can't practice legally as a medical doctor. Its for safety reasons - he might be every bit the doctor as the real, certified person, but he has not sworn to the hippocratic oath, he does not have malpractice insurance set up, and various other considerations of accountability may not exist. Also, the state did not keep as close an eye on his medical training. Engineering programs are inspected.

The whole Engineer licensing thing didn't start because of a bunch of engineers wanting to stroke their egos. It started because of a series of catastrophes where nobody was accountable.

So, if you are not designing safety-critical systems, there's no reason to want to call yourself an engineer, unless you just like the fancy word. It is not just a fancy word - abusing it is just like people who use the word "literally" for emphasis.

There's nothing wrong

[MC68000]

The internet is a mature medium. The restaurant was warned about it, and they failed to do anything. It's an open and shut case of false advertising. Would you tolerate your brokerage firm listing out of date brokerage fees? Or your bank listing out of date interest rates?

It's false advertising

[sahonen]

Exactly why is a web site a special case from other forms of promotion and advertising?

Re:It's false advertising

[nacturation]

Once you start a website, should you be legally obligated to keep it up to date? What if it's a personal website that gives obsolte directions on how to get somewhere? This seems like a really hasty and simplistic decision by people who haven't thought the situation through.

Imagine if your bank advertised no charges on all bank accounts on their website, so you sign up for several accounts and all your friends an family do too. At the end of the month, you get your statements and find that you've been charged a lot in bank charges. So you notify the bank about it and also let the local banking assocation know. The banking assocation also notifies the bank about it but still the bank does nothing to correct the obvious error, such as having the page removed or shutting down the site.

Do you think it's wrong to fine the bank in that situation?

Re:It's false advertising

[novakreo]

While the restaurant was clearly stupid for not doing anything even after being warned, I'm not at all convinced that commercial enterprises are (or should be) under an obligation to find and destroy all out of date promotional material. Which is essentially what this judgement amounts to.

Nice straw man. Nobody is saying the restaurant, or anybody else, should have to destroy old promo material.

Anyone who now visits the website (assuming it hasn't been updated), will see old prices, which is equivalent to new promotional material deliberately containing old prices. I say deliberate, because TFA states the restaurant was informed of its oversight. This is false advertising, and this is what they have been fined for.

What if it's a personal website that gives obsolte directions on how to get somewhere?

I'm not a New Zealander, but I doubt that their Fair Trading Act would apply to individuals who aren't running a business. It seems that all you're doing is scaremongering about what is a perfectly reasonable judicial decision.

Re:It's false advertising

[ratsnapple tea]

But a website is "iterative" too; you have to keep paying (monthly or yearly, in most cases) to keep it up. So in that sense it does require effort to maintain.

And I'm not even sure your test (maintenance effort) is a good one. Consider this. Around the corner from where I live is a deli that's been around since the 50s. On the brick wall facing the street, there's stenciled lettering promising heros for $2. When they raise the price, why shouldn't they have to change the mural too? "Because it isn't iterative" isn't a good reason, IMO.

Re:It's false advertising

[tria]

Not a lawer, but the bit of law he was fined under only applies if promoting goods or services: Fair Trading Act 1986 Part 1 S13 SS(g): No person shall, in trade, in connection with the supply or possible supply of goods or services or with the promotion by any means of the supply or use of goods or services,-- g) Make a false or misleading representation with respect to the price of any goods or services; or

Re:It's false advertising

[zurtle]

Actually, if a NZ company does have an incorrect price, they have to stand by it, within reason. Law isn't draconian in NZ, as some of the young libertarians seem to be projecting... But if you state a price for something, you have to follow through with it, unless it's clearly wrong - for example a car labelled "$50" instead of "$50k".

Maybe the company was less "caring" about what it posted on the net... maybe it considered the internet to be a "lesser" form of advertising? Some bozo in a previous post called it government interfering with business...

This country's shifting a large part of the business advertising paradigm to the internet - flights are booked online, we shop online more and more; maybe most pertinently our phonebooks are online: consequently websites are popping up in response. Thus I'm glad the laws here are responding, and can respond to the issues at hand.

The consumer is well-protected by law in NZ, I suspect it's because consumers here are stupider than elsewhere!!!

What next?

[ediron2]

In other news, the Staten Island Ferry was fined $30,000 after a customer got in line clutching a rate card from 1958.

Turning to Europe, a German recycling firm was shuttered over the weekend when it was discovered that, in a locked, donated trunk of old books and papers, they had been in posession of WWII-era Nazi propaganda.

And PETA's founder was forced to resign today after it was learned his father once ate a steak. Rare.

Re:What next?

[stimpy]

>In other news, the Staten Island Ferry was fined >$30,000 after a customer got in line clutching a >rate card from 1958.

If they were handing them out without telling anyone they were old, that would be a valid fine. The website was still up, they were warned about it, they did nothing. Can you say "bait and switch"?

Re:What next?

[ediron2]

Regarding RTFA, I did. The OP stated that the fine was due to 'failure to keep (a) site current'. The articles indicate owner unwillingness, but the owner was quoted as claiming he lacked the time or the skills to fix the site.

If you know a few business-owners (esp restaurant owners), you'll agree that some are utterly clueless on IT and economic/finance practices. What if this guy really is just clueless?

This NZ$3000 case isn't an ideal case for what I'm saying, but what about the precedent? This potentially sets a legal and public-opinion precedent that I'm not thrilled with:

1. First precedent: publishing specific details are risky on your website, because you can be held accountable long after you've forgotten that you ever created some orphan page. Think I'm crazy? Imagine a one-time web ad: 'throughout june, mention this ad and get a surf-n-turf special for $12.95'.... oops, no year. Now, your cut-rate $50-per-modification webmaster cuts the link in July, but leaves the html on the server for your/his future reuse, and some webcrawler never forgets it. As I said, 'In other news, the Staten Island Ferry was fined $30,000 after a customer got in line clutching a rate card from 1958.'

   Suing a company for old, orphaned, or flawed webpages creates a small barrier against entry. It gives an avenue for large firms to hammer on smaller/weaker competitors (into oblivion) for insufficient detail or inaccuracies online. If they act defensively, they publish less detail, and we lose detailed data because of the maintenance costs.

   Would you rather price information for some shops be utterly unavailable online? Is that the stance of everyone disagreeing with me here? 'Cuz we risk a subtle chilling effect happening if the 'net is policed for accuracy, whether by a government commission or by competitors given more leeway to frivolously sue.

   Would the restaurant's site be sufficiently fixed if a tiny bit of print said: 'last updated 21-Sept-2004'? Because I can't count the number of restaurants, bars and arts venues, online stores, peer-review sites and newspaper/magazine-based reviews that have some small bit of out-of-date info on the 'net.

   Hell, even this story suffers the time-distortion effects of the web: it was old enough news that I literally found 130 copies of the story on the web. Apparently, nerds are among the last to know that this happened in February.

2. Screwed by a gift: a friend/customer/admirer or some wannabe offers you a bargain website? Turn it down, because they might not give you keys to the site, maintain it, etc., but you'll be held responsible. Or, in my facetious tone, '...it was discovered that, in a locked, donated trunk of old books and papers, they had been in posession of WWII-era Nazi propaganda.'

   Would you rather only *large* companies advertise online? Because that's another risk: if you can't afford to pay for the maintenance, don't advertise online. Also, if you can't afford to have your ad vetted for legal risks, don't run it.

3. Killed by bad press: even a lame claim against a PR-dependent company can do massive damage. And PETA's founder was forced to resign today after it was learned his father once ate a steak. Rare.

   Would yu want your favorite hangout to take the PR hit for being 'under investigation' or for news that they're being sued by a customer?

My original post was off-the-cuff, but I'll stand by it, even if it does mean another round of moderator smack-down. This is one of those road-to-hell / good-intentions things. Worse, the commission/judge used buzz-phrases that made them sound like a bad web-advertising seminar from '98, they seem oblivious to international issues, they don't seem aware of the high cost of content maintenance, etc. Meanwhile, sensible web marketing advice like datestamp or expiration notices never got mentioned and they're making legal precedents that are easily abused.

Re:Scary

[spac3manspiff]

Yeah, and Frys would get fined alot

Include fine print

[d2_m_viant]

This is why I always recommend to my customers to include in the fine print: "Prices are subject to change without notice."

At that point, I would hope the company is no longer liable for a customer's stupidity.

Re:Include fine print

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

There is a difference between reserving the rights to change (including increase) prices, etc and making a change but still actively telling people old, inaccurate information.

It isn't like they got a paper ad and one changed the prices, and the ad is out of date.

The website keeps serving pages that are inaccurate. That would be like one continuing to print paper ads that have old information, even after one made the change that rendered the info on the site inaccurate and in this case, where they were informed of the discrepency. ("knew or had reason to know")

That is just plain wrong.

If the website was hosted outside of New Zealand.

[xRobx]

Well I looked around the article but couldn't locate any information whether the site was hosted inside of New Zealand or outside, but I would imagine if it was hosted outside of New Zealand that they would have no right to go after the company for what their website contained, since it would not be on their soil.

Re:Scary

[Alpha_Traveller]

I hope this does happen in the USA, but only to companies.

A) Too many companies leave false, misleading information.
B) Too many companies still believe a Web site is something you can build and leave alone, or revisit only once a year.
C) It'll keep large companies from hiring part-time Webmasters, and encourage more full time hires to conduct regular Web site updates.

Hmmm... okay, 2 out of 3 wouldn't be bad...

Re:Scary

[dcclark]

I don't want to get in trouble for not keeping all of my numerous sites up to date.

Are those personal sites? No worries. You can let them rot and maybe your friends and family will bug you. But if they are business-related sites for an active business such as the restaurant in this article, then you DO have a responsibility to either keep the site up to date, or make it obvious that the site is inaccurate and people coming to your shop should be prepared for different prices and availability. If you are a business owner, you have a responsibility not to advertise falsely, in whatever manner you choose to advertise.

It's not unlike putting out a pile of ads for people to pick up which list your prices as of half a year ago. If your prices are significantly different, you don't carry half those items any more, etc. then you are indeed falsely advertising. The difference is that an old flyer usually appears physically old, but a website can hide its age.

Re:To some extent they have a point.

[stox]

I have to disagree. How many people went to the restaurant with the expectation that they would be getting X for Y, and instead got X for 1.36 x Y? With the addition of a moderate punitive damage, $3260 doesn't sound unreasonable.

Slashdot will be next

[Magickcat]

Slashdot had better watch out too then. It's putrid colour scheme and invalid html code are even more outdated.

This sends a good message

[nodehopper]

This goes back to the days of "Bait and Switch" advertising in newspapers back in the 70's. Certainly, if the restaurant posted prices, then they do have a legitimate responsibility to keep that sort of "Time Sensitive" information up to date.

"The complaining customer had notified both the restaurant and the Restaurant Association of New Zealand that the website menu was out of date and misleading, but the operator, despite knowing about the issue, had done nothing to correct the website."

This sends a good message to commercial web site operators and e-commerce sites that they have to maintain current and correct information and can't just say "We didn't have time to update things.....so not our problem"

I don't think I need to worry about my blog I set up one weekend a couple months ago and haven't touched since......do I ???

Re:Scary

[luvirini]

Well, US is not known for the high level of consumer rights. But I do foresee similar cases in some country in the EU where they have reasonably effective consumer protection laws and authorities.

Re:So What?

[kd5ujz]

Read the Article.

Tony's Vineyard Restaurant in Henderson, Waitakere, found out the hard way that out of date menus are misrepresntations substantial enough to attract the attention of the Commerce Commission.

The restaurant operator pleaded guilty on Thursday in the Waitakere District Court to breaching the Fair Trading Act in relation to website promotion of its menu and prices and was fined $3,000 plus $260 in court costs.

According to the commission, the restaurant's website made various representations about the availability and price of certain meals on the menu over a six month period dating from a customer complaint.

The commission said that many of the meals were not actually available for order at the restaurant, and others were not available at the listed price. In some circumstances, the website price varied between 17 and 36 per cent cheaper than the in-house menu.

The complaining customer had notified both the restaurant and the Restaurant Association of New Zealand that the website menu was out of date and misleading, but the operator, despite knowing about the issue, had done nothing to correct the website.

Re:If the website was hosted outside of New Zealan

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you missed the point.

We are protected here in NZ, from false advertising which may draw us into a store, restaurant etc. expecting low priced goods or special bargains.

The restaurant can host its website wherever it wants, it was still telling New Zealanders that it had specific items on its menu, which it no longer actually serves.

p.s. last time I dined there the staff were rude and incompetent, and they deserve to be straightened out in any way possible.

Re:To some extent they have a point.

[tria]

Depending on the place it would be about $20-35 (NZ$) for a main meal.

YAUL- Yet Another Useless Lawsuit

[CMGaretJax]

Next up we'll have people filing suit for personal information on blogs not being up to date. I can see it now: If I had the right screenname I would never have become an opium addicticed stripper for you! Or some other implausible lawsuit... hey maybe I can sue shashdot for something... they have money right?

Re:Give the guy a break

[tria]

NZ has a law the Fair Trading Act 1986. Part of it is around consumer protection. Basically the part he has been fined under is a section that states business must advertise prices, product spec etc correctly. It doesn't matter if it was in print or online it's advertising. He was warned about it and did nothing, so he was fined. It's not about Big brother jumping in. He broke a law (that pre-dates common usage of the Internet) and he got caught. A number of companies a year get fined for this sort of action, the only reason this got much of a headline is that it was the 1st web-based advertising to be fined under the Act.

Offtopic...

[rathehun]

In other news, hordes of dissapointed Slashdotters find that they can't /. the servers because there is no direct link.

Great Opportunity for NZ Web Developers!

[7Ghent]

"Is your website out of date? You could be fined $3000! Instead, pay us to update your site!"

Makes me wish this would happen in the US.

Re:Hmmmm, carry a two, that's....

[spagetti_code]

USD NZD Scroll down to the 12 month graph.

(flamebait)
Another Bush term ought to do it :-)
(/flamebait)

Re:If the website was hosted outside of New Zealan

[Frogbert]

Why would you think that? It doesn't matter where the advertisement is physically stored, its still fake.

Re:Scary

[drsquare]

It doesn't matter how 'stupid' or 'naive' the customers are. False advertising is false advertising. It amuses me how some people here think that otherwise illegal activities are suddenly fine if they're done using a computer.

If as a business owner you don't like it, then the real solution, rather than to bitch and moan about those evil trade laws, is to advertise real information rather than false information. I mean, I can't think that any business anywhere has any excuse for knowingly advertising false information.

Let's screw all the mom and pop businesses

[D. Book]

This sounds like it has the potential to be a great money spinner for Slashdot users with a litigious streak and zero sympathy for the non-computer/Internet literate.

There are thousands of "mom and pop" businesses out there who paid a webmaster to make them a site as a one-off after being bombarded with the message that their business will go under if they don't join the 21st century and get an Internet presence. Once their contract with the webmaster expires, these sites often sit dormant for years. The owners of these businesses are typically working their asses off on the fundamentals to stay afloat, and it's probable that many barely recall the fact that they have a (rather pointless) Internet presence, let alone know how to update the site, or have the spare cash to hire a webmaster just to update a few details.

So here's what we do. We seek these sites out, send an e-mail to their long since unmonitered account complaining that we were misled because the site's details are not up-to-date, and sue the pants off them when there is no response. And we don't have to feel the least bit bad about our nuisance lawsuits tying up the overburdened court system, because after all, these greedy small businesses maliciously attempted to deceive people, and we're just doing our bit to eliminate this evil from the world.

Ok, try this hypothetical...

[Cap'n Crax]

(Say) I own a restaurant. I've been in restaurant business for 28 years, but just recently this young man approached me about a "web-site" thing. I don't know diddly-squat about computers and such, but it's cheap. I pay him $500 and sets up a web-site for me. All is wonderful...

Later, I get notice that my web-site thing is "wrong" but I can no longer reach the guy that made it? What do I do??????

[I in fact know people who have web sites set up for their business by short-lived companies. The web sites often live on, longer than their creators. The "owners" who paid to have them created may not know HOW to change them.]

Re:Ok, try this hypothetical...

[goldfndr]

Later, I get notice that my web-site thing is "wrong" but I can no longer reach the guy that made it? What do I do??????

Proper notification requires that the web-site thing be named, lest it be a competitor's site created to ruin your good name or other ruse.

Once you have the site's URI, you could contractually hire someone else to track down how to gain access to it and to alter/remove part of it. Or, at worst, persuade the virtual site's owner to delete it. Really, all the virtual site's owner would need to do is verify your address and/or phone number (surely your web-site thing has these!), social engineering notwithstanding.

Re:Ok, try this hypothetical...

[danila]

How is it different from me paying a newspaper to print my ads promoting some discounted special offers, then raising the prices back and refusing to do anything about newspaper ads, because I forget which newspaper it was, don't remember the name of my advertising agency, lost their telephone number, the dog ate my homework, etc.

It's not different, just because it's online. You fail to update your website, it's your fault, now pay a fine AND fix the problem.

I got a good deal on a digital camera that way...

[nettdata]

I went to a local Vancouver camera shop's web site, and looked into pricing for a Sigma SD10. Found that they had a great deal on for the camera body, 2 lenses (wide angle and zoom), case, and really nice flash.

I went down and tried to buy the camera, but was quoted a HUGELY different price for it. I asked the guy to go to their website and tell me what it says, after which the clerk said someone made a mistake on the data input... turns out the price was only for the base, not including the 2 lenses and the flash.

As a result, the clerk called the owner/boss, who asked them if the lower price was actually on the site, and had a detailed description of what was included in that price, and when it was validated, he said "well, give that stuff to him at that price... and CHANGE THE WEBSITE. " The site was changed while I was still in the store paying for my camera.

So, at the end of the day, I saved over $1,500 due to their screwup. I kind of felt bad about it, and ended up buying more stuff than I would have (huge amounts of ram, rechargeable batteries, tripod, etc), but it was nice to see the guy live up to his on-line marketing.

Hopefully WalMart is next.

[stuartkahler]

In larger markets, WalMart has their in-store pricing match their online pricing because they're undercutting local stores online and b&m. However, in rural areas where there's no Best Buy, CC or whatever to compete with, they charge the regular price in-store. If you ask the customer service people, they refuse to price match their own website advertised prices. You can go online to order it, but you can't get it in the store.

Example: Recently, some new DVD came out that would normally run at least $19.99. Best Buy and others were selling it at $15.99 to bring in customers. Walmart was selling it for $14.88 online and in stores near Best Buy. In Walmarts in the middle of nowhere, the price was the full $19.99. No price matching. I skipped going to Best Buy to pick it up because walmart.com said I could get it at Walmart for $14.88. By the time I was near a Best Buy again, the sale was over.

It's not even a case of old or mistyped pricing. They're actively selling at the price, just not in certain areas where they can get away with jamming up the customer. Most other places that charge less online will at least give you the lower price in the store if you ask.

Re:Hopefully WalMart is next.

[poot_rootbeer]

I skipped going to Best Buy to pick it up because walmart.com said I could get it at Walmart for $14.88.

No it didn't. It said you could order it from Walmart.com for $14.88.

Troll or Impulsive Post? You decide

[SlimFastForYou]

A few facts that you seem to have neglected to mention:

-No one made "big bucks". The Commerce Commission fined the restauraunt $3000. The court took $260 to cover court costs.

-The restauraunt knew that their site had caused one or more customers to visit the restauraunt on false pretenses.

From the article:
"The complaining customer had notified both the restaurant and the Restaurant Association of New Zealand that the website menu was out of date and misleading, but the operator, despite knowing about the issue, had done nothing to correct the website."

Also,

"His Honour agreed with the Commission that the breaches [i.e. false advertisement] were not inadvertent."

If I were running a restauraunt, and a customer pointed out a mistake in my advertising, I would have made their meal gratis. Then I would have posted a sign in the lobby letting people know of the mistake (in case more people were coming because of it), and got to work on correcting the advertising. After one week I would take down the sign. I believe most businesses are supposed to follow a similar procedure - at least here in California.

Re:My local computer store...

[deimtee]

The difference being that if you drive out to that store and ask to pay those prices I bet they would be quite willing to accomodate you.

add a date to your website

[azery]

if you add a date to your website (and indicate how long pricing remain valid), you should be safe... It's like advertising in a newspaper. Nobody is going to try to use an advertisement you placed ten years ago against you. The same holds if you clearly indicate the date on your site... People can simply see that the prices are old... Same thing if you indicate that prices can be changed without notification...

False advertising?

[AussiePenguin]

Nothing annoys me more than all the web sites out there that are out of date. However, if it's clearly out of date then is that really false advertising? Perhaps I just have a sense of what is out of date (well some of these web sites will have shocking 10 year old looking HTML so I'll disregard the information within seconds). Though if the web site owner were place a disclaimer saying "Prices current as of ", I don't see why they'd be liable 2 years later when they've forgotten to update prices. In any case, it probably makes sense for businesses to date any prices they publish, even in fine print. I'm guessing that the web site in question didn't do this.

What really annoys me more though is computer retailers who advertise online prices that are discounted to compensate for postage but when you walk into their store the prices are completely different. Perhaps I ought to tell 'em next time I notice that they're probably breaking fair trading laws and follow it up with the ACCC if they don't honour their prices.

I smell astroturf

[acb]

This reminds me of the stories about ridiculous lawsuits (i.e., people suing toaster manufacturers for millions, and winning, because their toaster didn't have a sticker warning them not to use it in the bath), many of which are said to be planted by lobby groups pushing for product-liability laws to be pulled back, making it harder for consumers to sue.

Similarly, I wonder whether the distortion in this story (turning false advertising into outrageous government interference in personal web publishing) has an agenda behind it. Perhaps someone wants to weaken New Zealand's truth-in-advertising laws?

Re:I smell astroturf

[Anita Coney]

"Personally I think the market should sort stuff out in these cases."

Luckily for you, you have a solution. Build a time machine and travel back to America in the 1800s when there were NO consumer laws. Back then you could sell gasoline as a curative and it was PERFECTLY legal.

But of course you couldn't sue the seller, because he wasn't the one who put the gas in the bottle. And of course you couldn't sue the bottler, because there was no privity of contract between you and the bottler. Basically, consumers were screwed.

But if that's the world you want to live in, I suggest you get cracking on that time machine!

Re:I smell astroturf

[acb]

No; quite the opposite. I think that the fine was quite right, because this story is a simple case of false advertising, and that the "restaurant fined for not updating their web pages" spin put on it by various news articles smells of having an agenda behind it.

Some of the stories about frivolous lawsuits that have been circulated allegedly have been planted or spun by corporate lobby groups with their own agenda (namely the rolling back of product-liability laws); hence my analogy. Both cases sound like soecial interest groups trying to marshal public opinion in favour of rolling back legislation that protects consumers from unfair business practices.

Re:My local computer store...

[Secrity]

The biggest difference I can see is that your local computer store is likely to be quite willing to sell it's products at the out of date prices; but, the restaurant was not willing to sell it's products at the advertised price.

So is computer illiteracy the new blanket excuse?

[Moraelin]

I fail to see why it's excusable to advertise false (lower)prices, just because it's on the Internet.

Here's a novel idea: If they didn't plan to update the prices on the site, how about not writing any prices on the site to start with? Prices are _not_ static constant content by any stretch of imagination. If they run a shop, mom-and-pop or not, they already know this.

I don't think they'd print a huge batch of menus/posters/fliers/whatever and keep using them for years after the prices changed, either. So they already _knew_ that prices change.

So sorry to rain on your parrade, but I don't see it as an excuse. Anyone who got made a web site by a web master, and saw _prices_ on that page, should have at least asked "well, what if those prices change"? Again, anyone who owns a shop or ever _worked_ in one even as a temp, that's the _first_ thing they learned about prices.

So here's a novel idea: if they werent malicious, they're complete cretins. And I fail to see why idiocy should be an excuse.

"Prices valid through March 31, 2005"

[davidwr]

Put an prominent expiration date on all your web sites and you won't have this problem.

Re:"Prices valid through March 31, 2005"

[TheAwfulTruth]

Insightful?

Why bother having a website at all if you just build it and forget about it?

How about:

1) Keeping your website up to date. Isn't that what it's there for? To inform people about you, your buisness or your products?

2) Don't put information up that expires. If you are really lazy, just put your logo, description and address. Then there is no updating required.

Putting up "factual" information then letting it go out of date but warning people that it may be out of date at any time is just stupid.

Re:Disclaimer

[TheAwfulTruth]

Unlike other advertising, web pages can be updated instantly along with the menus. How often do the menu prices change anyway? Is it completely unreasonable to expect that the information on a companies website be atleast somewhat accurate?

With print, yes, a 6 month old magazine in a doctor's office might contain outdated info. A website should not, ever, contain outdated info. Especially realted to pricing. It is inexcusable under any circumstances. People expect that a websites prices are in fact the real prices.

I have to say that having a commercial website with out of date prices is dangerously close to bait and switch. I sure don't want to see websites all over the net suddently doing things like advertising the latest nvidia graphics card for $49 with a tiny disclaimer at the bottom saying "prices may not be accurate".