Madras High Court Deems Shaadi.com's "30-Day Money Back Guarantee" Advertisement Misleading

In a significant legal development, the Madras High Court has issued an interim injunction against the matrimonial website Shaadi.com, finding its "30-Day Money Back Guarantee" advertisement to be prima facie misleading and deceptive. The court's decision underscores the importance of transparency in advertising, especially in services as personal and sensitive as matrimonial matchmaking.

Background of the Case

The case was initiated by Matrimony.com, a competitor in the online matrimonial services sector. Matrimony.com filed a lawsuit alleging that Shaadi.com's advertisement violated several regulations, including the Code for Self-regulation of Advertising Content in India, the Cable Television Networks Rules of 1994, and the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act of 1995. The plaintiff contended that Shaadi.com had engaged in deceit by making dishonest and untruthful claims about their services, thereby exploiting consumers.

Court's Observations

Justice RMT Teeka Raman presided over the case and scrutinized the advertisement in question. The court observed that while the advertisement prominently promised a "30-Day Money Back Guarantee," the actual terms and conditions of this offer were significantly different from what was implied. Specifically, the guarantee was conditional: a premium member had to send at least ten interest requests and receive no acceptances within the first 30 days to qualify for the money-back offer. These critical terms were found to be "tucked in fine print," making them not easily noticeable to the average consumer.

The court stated, "On perusal of the advertisement/offer and paper printout of the respondent [Shaadi.com] as found in the typed set of papers... this Court finds that the said advertisement/offer of the respondent is in contravention of the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994 as the 'money back guarantee' advertisement/offer made by the respondent appears to be highly misleading and deceptive to the general public."

Arguments Presented

Matrimony.com argued that Shaadi.com's advertisement was not only misleading but also had the potential to cause widespread disappointment among consumers. They highlighted that the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) had reviewed the advertisement and concluded that it was misleading. The ASCI had recommended that Shaadi.com modify or withdraw the advertisement, but the company had refused to comply.

In defense, Shaadi.com contended that the lawsuit was baseless and an attempt by a competitor to undermine their market position. They argued that the legal action was a manifestation of business rivalry aimed at stifling Shaadi.com's growth. The company also pointed out that they had included a disclaimer in the advertisement, clarifying that the money-back guarantee was subject to specific terms and conditions.

Legal Implications

The court's decision to grant an interim injunction against Shaadi.com emphasizes the legal requirement for advertisers to ensure that their promotional content is not misleading. The ruling highlights that disclaimers or terms and conditions that significantly alter the primary message of an advertisement must be presented clearly and conspicuously. Burying essential terms in fine print does not absolve a company from the responsibility of providing transparent and honest information to consumers.

Conclusion

This case serves as a critical reminder of the ethical and legal obligations companies have in their advertising practices. The Madras High Court's ruling underscores the necessity for businesses to maintain transparency and honesty in their promotional materials, ensuring that consumers are not misled by bold claims that are contradicted by hidden terms. As the digital marketplace continues to grow, such legal precedents will play a vital role in shaping fair advertising practices and protecting consumer rights.