We would like to ensure that you are still receiving content that you find useful – please confirm that you would like to continue to receive ILO newsletters.
29 June 2017
Following a complaint filed by an individual against Kaymu (an online shopping platform) for deceptive marketing practices, the Competition Commission conducted an enquiry and found that:
Kaymu provides an online shopping platform that enables buyers and sellers to engage in and conduct transactions. The complainant relied on Kaymu's assurance that it would act as a mediator in the event of any dispute arising between buyers and third-party sellers and used Kaymu's online shopping portal to order a wristwatch through a third-party vendor. However, a different wristwatch was delivered to the complainant and Kaymu failed to take any responsibility to resolve the matter.
Kaymu claimed that it was neither the manufacturer nor the seller of the product and that it had no responsibility to ensure the product's quality. Further, it claimed that the product's distribution, development, design, marketing and supply were not part of its customer obligations. In addition, the Kaymu website had specified that when making a purchase on the website, the buyer was entering into a contract with the seller, rather than with Kaymu.
Kaymu also stated that its website and the terms and conditions appearing therein included disclaimers discharging it from all liabilities. The disclaimer read as follows: "you will not hold Kaymu.pk responsible for other users' content, actions, or inactions, or items or information they list or post".
Kaymu had also developed a seller rating system to assist buyers in the evaluation of a seller's credibility before engaging in a transaction, which the complainant had failed to check at the time of purchase.
To provide a fair and honest buying experience for the buyer, Kaymu had also established a system in which sellers were required to create their own return policies. In the return policy section, Kaymu had clearly declared that it would only facilitate the returns process and act as a mediator. It had also clarified that it could not guarantee the return of a product by the seller and further reiterated that a buyer did not buy directly from Kaymu, but rather from the seller.
Further, Kaymu maintained that the returns section had clearly stated that "Kaymu cannot guarantee that all sellers will actually perform the requested refund or replacement. We therefore strongly recommend to buy from sellers with high ratings and positive comments".
The Competition Commission's enquiry report underlined the negligence of the complainant and Kaymu in the matter at hand and also stressed the principles to be followed by buyers, sellers and online service providers.
As regards the complainant's negligence, the Competition Commission relied on guidelines issued by the New Zealand Commerce Commission for buying and selling online and concluded that the complainant had failed to follow the guidelines and assume the responsibility through which he might have been able to avoid the issue.
The commission noted that Kaymu's returns section had explained to buyers how to avoid fraud. It had also reminded buyers to check the seller's ratings before making any purchase, as it is a vital indicator of whether the seller is a trustworthy entity.
Further, before agreeing to proceed with a transaction, buyers should:
Kaymu had advised the buyer to examine the seller's rating and return policies before confirming the purchase. However, when interrogated, the complainant admitted that it had checked neither the seller's rating nor its returns policy before making the transaction. Kaymu had also mentioned on its website that in the case of a dispute, its duty was limited to acting as a mediator and that it could not guarantee the seller's compliance.
As regards Kaymu's negligence, the Competition Commission contended that service providers must make clear and conspicuous disclosures of their terms and conditions and other necessary information that could affect a buyer's decision-making process. In the absence of specific legislation in this regard, the Competition Commission relied on guidelines issued by the US Federal Trade Commission in relation to disclosures in digital advertising.
The Competition Commission further observed the following:
In view of the above, the Competition Commission decided that Kaymu had been involved in deceptive marketing practices and has accordingly initiated proceedings against it.
For further information on this topic please contact Sanaya Vachha at Vellani & Vellani by telephone (+92 21 3580 1000) or email (email@example.com). The Vellani & Vellani website can be accessed at www.vellani.com.
The materials contained on this website are for general information purposes only and are subject to the disclaimer.
ILO is a premium online legal update service for major companies and law firms worldwide. In-house corporate counsel and other users of legal services, as well as law firm partners, qualify for a free subscription.