If you’re in contract, I’m not sure this will be a significant reason to leave without penalty. Just bear that in mind.

In reply to a post by Pheasant:

If you’re in contract, I’m not sure this will be a significant reason to leave without penalty. Just bear that in mind.

Their marketing is quite clear, they offer the lowest latency, so going from 2ms up to 12ms or more isn't offering the lowest latency, as the lowest would be 2ms. If you took them to a small claims court, they would never win. You can't make claims like that as a company then not fulfil them, then expect to hold someone to a contract. It is false advertising, plain and simple.

In reply to a post by E300:

In reply to a post by Pheasant:

If you’re in contract, I’m not sure this will be a significant reason to leave without penalty. Just bear that in mind.

Their marketing is quite clear, they offer the lowest latency, so going from 2ms up to 12ms or more isn't offering the lowest latency, as the lowest would be 2ms. If you took them to a small claims court, they would never win. You can't make claims like that as a company then not fulfil them, then expect to hold someone to a contract. It is false advertising, plain and simple.

Hehehe. I had a look at their website, clearly aimed at the gamers mindset (no offence gamers) full of wild and fantastic claims (hot air and BS). They’re just a well oiled retail spin off TN.

I’d advise the OP to talk first and lay legal claims later. It may be a better outcome all round.

In reply to a post by Pheasant:

I’d advise the OP to talk first and lay legal claims later. It may be a better outcome all round.

Agreed. Marketing material does not form part of the contract, nor does anything that a salesman says, and many contracts have a clause which says so explicitly.

In reply to a post by candlerb:

Agreed. Marketing material does not form part of the contract, nor does anything that a salesman says, and many contracts have a clause which says so explicitly.

The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations protects consumers from false advertising. What they say on the website about a product or service must hold true and consumers have protections should they have been misled.

Edited by E300 (Sat 26-Mar-22 13:59:31)

It doesn't seem to have much sway when it comes to advertising though. Otherwise, why would there be a need for the completely toothless Advertising Standards Agency, who don't prosecute or even fine, but just give an instruction not to run the same advert again?

In reply to a post by Pheasant:

I had a look at their website, clearly aimed at the gamers mindset (no offence gamers) full of wild and fantastic claims (hot air and BS). They’re just a well oiled retail spin off TN.

I’d advise the OP to talk first and lay legal claims later. It may be a better outcome all round.

Virgin had a period of trying this style of marketing. "best for gamers" etc.

Each one was slapped down by the ASA as the jitter inherent with cable frankly made their claims impossible, and the Ofcom yearly reports even included jitter measures which Virgin came out poorly in.

Agreed. You don't have to look far to find numerous examples...

EE’s claims it is the “No.1 network”

"UK's most powerful Wi-Fi vs. major broadband providers"

Vodafone “Unlimited” data plans

There are hundreds more...

However, I'm not aware of any related prosecutions under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations.

The wording of those regulations relates to the "average consumer", for example:

A commercial practice is a misleading action if ... it causes or is likely to cause the average
consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.

...

the “main characteristics of the product” include ... specification of the product

So if Leetline had guaranteed a latency of 5ms, and it turned out to be 10ms, then maybe that would apply. But a comparative claim like "the best latency in the UK" is much woolier.

In court, Leetline would point to the average latency across all their clients, and compare that against the average latency on other ISPs. They would also say that the "average consumer" isn't in the slightest bit bothered about an extra 5ms of latency, and they'd be right. They'd also probably claim that their geographical diversity results in a more reliable service.

In reply to a post by candlerb:

However, I'm not aware of any related prosecutions under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations.

Perhaps no ISP has taken it to court as they understand the law, know they are in the wrong and would lose any case.

Do you know of any prosecutions for similar claims under this act that has fallen in favour of the ISP?

In reply to a post by candlerb:

So if Leetline had guaranteed a latency of 5ms, and it turned out to be 10ms, then maybe that would apply. But a comparative claim like "the best latency in the UK" is much woolier.

In court, Leetline would point to the average latency across all their clients, and compare that against the average latency on other ISPs. They would also say that the "average consumer" isn't in the slightest bit bothered about an extra 5ms of latency, and they'd be right. They'd also probably claim that their geographical diversity results in a more reliable service.

They could claim that, but would look pretty stupid arguing most customers don't care about latency when their whole site is advertising to gamers WHO CARE about latency, and they are telling their customers to care about latency, that is their whole marketing strategy. I hope you are not their lawyer

Edited by E300 (Sun 27-Mar-22 10:39:29)