I hope I’m posting in the right place. Feel free to point me in the right direction if this is not the place.
I’m confused about a pet product that has been advertised on the packaging to do a specific thing but does not. When I brought it to the manufacturers attention, I’m told the manufacturers never said it would do that although the words are written on the packaging that it does.
In addition, when I went to leave a review about it from the company I bought it from, they have disabled my abilities to leave a review, probably because they refunded me. Regardless of the refund, I still think people should know but I’m at a loss of how to let them know now.
Also, would this be something for the ACCC to look into?
It feels frivolous and small but I’ve encountered so many similar issues recently. I’m at a loss as to what is going on.
It is sad they elected to disable your ability to write a review that might have reflected well on their company. Otherwise they apparently did the right thing and refunded. Your post implies they are a retailer not a manufacturer so it would not be on them anyway unless it was their own advertising.
The ACCC is a place to report false or misleading advertising.. The complaint submission link is well down the linked page. Since you were refunded the ACCC might not agree there is a problem but sometimes they step up. Normally they only take interest in pervasive or egregious misleading advertisements/actions; you can find a few instances posted on the Community using the search tool. Sometimes one can be surprised - I made a complaint a few years ago about a misleading healthcare advertisement and the offender was eventually fined (from memory) $32,000. I do not know if others or how many may have lodged complaints, but it does happen.
As far as letting people know, you can post factual dispassionate information on the Community as well as post reviews on sites such as productreview.com.au and so on.
Do you have a photograph of the packaging of the product in question and also could you let us know how the packaging is misleading?
It would be useful for other community members to understand the concerns that you have and will let others know about the claims the products in making.
The image is what is called puffery and/or for illustrative purposes, where the photo shows a treat larger than the hole, being inserted into the hole for illustrative purposes.
Looking at the photo, a reasonable person would know it would be impossible to insert such a treat into the hole unless the treat was very soft/flexible (dog biscuit treats are neither) or the toy is highly flexible/soft (which would be a concern as a puppy may be able to easily destroy the toy and could be a choking hazard).
If the treat shown could somehow be inserted with some force, it is unlikely a puppy would be able to get the treat out.
Also, dog biscuit treats aren’t all the same size, so the photo could easily be another product other than the one you have.
Possibly the manufacturer could include the wording like ‘for illustrative purposes’ next to the photo like some, but not all products which have photos of how a product could be used. But, one expect each use and how a product is used is slightly different.
In relation to photos, there are many products I use where the photo on the product label is different to how I use it. An example being a kitchen utensil which shows a small potato, when most of the potatoes we have are large. Doesn’t mean the product label is not correct, as one knows the photo is for illustrative purposes only and not to be taken as exactly as shown. Otherwise most breakfast cereal boxes would fall foul as their photos on the cover are different to its contents (viz. because the contents doesn’t contain fresh fruit, yoghurt or milk).
I think you has answered your own question in relation to your concerns/thoughts.
The technique is common. No obvious ‘for illustrative purposes’ but a ‘reasonable person’ would not expect the bite to be as large as depicted on the happy ‘woof’. It appears the product is visible through the clear window that could mitigate the need for more explicit labelling?.
Thanks for that information. I’ve not heard of this before.
We will have to agree to disagree on the impossibility to insert such a tweet into the hole as this is what the treats are designed to do. “ * Can also be stuffed into a XYZ Classic dog toy” their item description says. The said toy is flexible to some degree.
True, but the one it is listed on says it fits into this specific toy. These are their rules, not mine.
Better yet they could say, “May or may not fit into into a XYZ Classic dog toy.” Or just leave it as treats for your dog. No stuffing mentioned, no specific toy mentioned.
However, if your kitchen utensil was labeled “for the intended use with XYZ item” and your kitchen utensil did not work with that specific item would you not believe or expect it to match the description given?
I believe any reasonable person would.
Thanks PhilT, I wasn’t aware of the for illustrative purposes. Perhaps it is my literal mind but in a graphics design I would not believe a treat to be this large because graphics are pretend. Photos feel real. What’s worse is on their website they have an image that is ridiculously larger that the image I posted previously.
As for the clear packaging on the item I purchased, the items could not be seen on the website or decided the sizing from the image.
In saying that, I’ve learned a lot today. Thanks for your time.
But your own photos show the dog treat you have and was listed does fit into the specific toy. It is their illustrative photo which indicates it potentially doesn’t.
If the photos were swapped (your experience is that of the illustrative photo, with the illustrative photo being your photo), then there could be a potential issue. The issue being the toy isn’t fit for purpose as the listed dog treats can’t readily fit within the toy.
Not necessarily. Say I had tongs that said ‘for the intended use for cooking meat on a BBQ’. I would not expect the tongs to be able to pick up a big BBQ roast or a long spit with many kilograms of meat. This is where a reasonable person would know that ‘tongs’ have limitations. The tongs packaging might have an illustrative photo showing a roast or a spit full of meat - doesn’t mean there is a problem with the packaging.
As the dog treats fit into the toy, it would be seen as fit for purpose. Because the illustrative photo shows something different doesn’t mean it is incorrect. Imagine if the dog treat in the illustrative photo was pink in colour, but yours was blue. Doesn’t mean you have been mislead or there is a problem with the packaging.
ACCC will never chase advertisers gimmicks until as a consumer prove it them
They can never see false advertising,misleading and photo/ price and descriptions never match for products sold right under every Australians noses but as bay- e ads and Fboock- Maktplce advertisement is so so misleading and falsely presented for sale even a Kindergarten Kid can pick that
It is just who is monitoring who - importance is not to fix these issues at the root but to build backlog and queue so system is on the go until another legal body is created to take care of it in the near future - Hopefully.
PN: Did you know dockets at checkout are phasing out and then even only if the product is faulty then you go back to NSW-DFT to complaint- Australian Innovation in Retailing-
Is it Save the Planet related then to promote their Sales & Colourful image Brochures and more at registers and the landfill and contamination does not matter- DOES IT REALLY
