Why regulator ruled Makro must remove 'misleading' advert after customer complaint

PL

Paula Luckhoff

15 April 2026 | 19:06

Consumer ninja Wendy Knowler looks at the most recent ruling by the Advertising Regulatory Board, after Makro delivered a product different to what was advertised on its website.

Why regulator ruled Makro must remove 'misleading' advert after customer complaint

Being able to order products we want online has certainly made our lives easier, but it's not always plain sailing.

Order mixups will happen, especially considering the fact that the major retailers allow smaller vendors to piggyback on their platforms as Marketplace vendors.

What we, as consumers, should focus on here is how e-tailers manage those mistakes, is Wendy Knowler's view.

"My attitude always is - whatever the company, whatever the service, don't judge them by a mistake (unless they keep making the same ones). A lot of things can go wrong online in the scope of everything they're offering... but we should judge them on how they rectify, because it should be a quickish, painless fix when things go wrong "

Knowler looks at the most recent ruling by the Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB), which covered the "not what I ordered" scenario.

A customer complained after ordering something described as a generic solar street light with built-in CCTV camera from the Makro website, and instead receiving some kind of solar surveillance product.

Makro offered the man a refund, but considering the wonderful specs of the product, he insisted they send this item to him.

When the retail chain refused, he took it up with the ARB, pointing out that the advert remained online and other customers could have the same disappointing experience.

"The Board did what they always do, contacting Makro and giving them the opportunity to respond, but apparently they failed to do so."

The regulator found Makro in breach of rules regarding the supply of products and decided they must remove or change the advert. They also cannot use it again, unless able to prove they're able to supply the product to customers.

It did note that the retailer's communication with the customer suggested the product was supplied by a third party, which might explain why they couldn't replace it directly.

This is no excuse, says Knowler: "They are responsible for their third party suppliers if they choose to host them on their platform - that's Makro, that's Takelot, that's anyone else who does it."

She also advises consumers to become acquainted with the two clauses cited by the ARB relating to alleged deception - it can only be useful if you need to take up a complaint yourself.

Click here for the details, as stipulated on Page 3 of the ruling.

To hear the full discussion, listen to the interview audio at the top of the article

Get the whole picture 💡

Take a look at the topic timeline for all related articles.

Trending News