Orange Belgium is no longer allowed to advertise in the Netherlands using the terms “glasvezel,” “fiber,” and “fibre” without further justification. Why? This was determined by the judge of the Court of Appeal in Antwerp following the lawsuit filed by Proximus against Orange. The reason Proximus filed the lawsuit was that Orange’s network does not yet consist entirely of high-speed fiber-optic cables, but still partly of slower coaxial cables. In this article, we’ll tell you more about it!
Misleading advertising
Proximus found Orange’s advertising in the Netherlands to be misleading. After all, Orange was advertising a fiber-optic network, while its network is actually a hybrid network. Proximus itself does have a network that consists entirely of fiber optics. The Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Proximus in this matter, since the terms “glasvezel” and “fiber” imply a network consisting entirely of fiber-optic cables, and Orange’s advertising could indeed be misleading. After all, consumers are influenced in their purchasing decisions because they believe that Orange’s network is truly a fiber-optic network.
The decision of the Court of Appeals
The Court of Appeal therefore ruled in favor of Proximus. This means that Orange may no longer use the terms “glasvezel,” “fiber,” and “fibre” in its advertisements in the Netherlands without further clarification. Its advertising must clearly state that it is a hybrid network and not a fully fiber-optic network. If Orange fails to comply with this ruling, the telecom company will be subject to penalty payments.
Ziggo was also guilty of this
Orange isn’t the only provider ever accused of misleading advertising in the telecom industry. In 2013, Ziggo was also barred from using the term “fiber-optic cable network” in its advertisements. A few years earlier, the provider had already been called out on this by the Advertising Code Committee, but unfortunately, the company did nothing about it. The Advertising Code Committee is not a court, so Ziggo was not obligated to act on this ruling. The Consumers’ Association did not view Ziggo’s advertising as a major issue, as the minor inaccuracies in the provider’s advertisements had no significant consequences for consumers. For them, it would only have been a problem if the internet Ziggo offers were not as fast as the provider promises.