The meaning of the phrase “unlimited data” will be the pivot point in the upcoming Competition Tribunal case brought by the Competition Bureau against Rogers Communication. 

In its original filing in December, the Competition Bureau alleged that the telecom giant was falsely advertising its “Infinite” wireless plans as offering “unlimited data”. Consumers cannot use as much data as they want, because the plans have data limits, and speeds are reduced (in a practice known as throttling) once those data limits are reached. 

In its response, Rogers argued that it clearly states the conditions for the plans in its advertising, web site, and in stages in the sales process. Further, it argued that wireless consumers understand the meaning of “unlimited data” to be ‘data at a certain speed up to a threshold, but slower after that threshold.’ 

Rogers said ordinary wireless services consumers “are capable of understanding clear and repeated disclosures of speed reduction, and are clearly familiar with the option to purchase high-speed data buckets of different sizes and at different prices.” Rogers also objected to being singled out for a practice used by all industry participants. 

In its late-February response to the Rogers response, Commissioner of Competition Matthew Boswell noted: “The fact that other wireless carriers may have copied Rogers’ reviewable conduct is an aggravating factor, not a mitigating one.” 

The Competition Bureau published a 2017 guideline on deceptive marketing practices which noted:  “Marketing a telecommunication service as ‘unlimited’ may raise concerns under the misleading advertising prohibitions in the Competition Act if, in fact, the service is materially limited in a manner that is inconsistent with the general impression.” It also concluded: “The Bureau encourages advertisers to ensure that consumers are not enticed with claims that promise unlimited services, only to be disappointed by additional mandatory fees or caps.”