Telco Company Claims Freedom of Speech Includes Misleading Ads
An anonymous reader writes "Rogers Telecommunications is claiming that a ruling by Canada's Competition Bureau violates Rogers' freedom of speech. The company is in court over a 2010 ad campaign where it claimed that its discount brand 'Chatr' was more reliable and suffered fewer dropped calls than the competition. The Competition Bureau found 'no discernible difference in dropped-call rates between Rogers/Chatr and new entrants' and began legal proceedings against Rogers for violating Canada's Competition Act. The Bureau is seeking a $10 million (CDN) fine, an end to the ad campaign, and for Rogers to issue a corrective notice."
I realize Rogers is a Canadian company, so the parallels aren't quite right, but how do the Americans feel this would have played out in the States given Citizens United?
"Telco" means TELephone COmpany, so the headline starts, "Telephone Company Company...". At least the summary doesn't mention "ATM machines" or "PIN numbers". Is it just me, or has the quality of writing on /. fallen off a cliff lately?
While I can accept that freedom of speech includes the freedom to lie, it includes the duty to accept the consequences of lying.
So I would say that anybody who made a purchase based on a premeditated lie should be able to request not only a refund of anything paid but punitive damages. It should refund all customers who bought the lied about product, say, three times the amount they paid plus allowance for disruption and time wasted.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.