More than two months after Anne Wong-Holloway made a complaint about a "misleading" advertisement to consumer watchdog, Case, through my blog, we are still waiting patiently for an outcome.
The ad by IT retailer Challenger was published in the mainstream newspapers during the IT Show on March 10 with a bold headline, "We Match Show Pricing".
But Anne found out to her dismay that it was not true when she went to its Funan Centre outlet to buy a Canon all-in-one printer. (See blog, THE TRUTH IN CHALLENGER'S AD on March 13)
She decided to write to me. I posted her story on March 13 and alerted both Case and Challenger about the complaint.
Challenger did not even both to acknowledge my email. However, Case did, and the matter was given to the Advertising Standards Authority of Singapore (ASAS) , an advisory council to Case, to look into.
ASAS' job is to promote ethical advertising in Singapore and is the self-regulatory body of the advertising industry.
A month after our complaint, nothing was heard from Case. So I emailed to ask what had happened.
Ms Aringi Ng, a Case official, replied: "The Council (of ASAS) finds that the matter should be referred to CASE to act under the CPFTA. We will inform CASE on this issue." CPFTA refers to the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act.
Well, we are still waiting for a verdict on what we see as a simple case of misrepresentation. I wonder what is taking Case so long!