South Africa’s Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB) has ruled that RocketNet’s Apollo 200 summer fibre promotion was misleading under Clause 4.2.1 of the Code of Advertising Practice, finding that the ISP failed to disclose a critical restriction: existing customers were excluded from the deal. The ruling, issued on 19 March 2026, sends a clear message to every telecoms provider and reseller in South Africa — burying key conditions in separate terms and conditions is not enough.
This is the latest in a string of ARB rulings against telecoms providers this year, following MTN’s failed appeal over misleading “free-to-use” router claims in January 2026. For resellers who market services on behalf of vendors and network operators, these rulings carry direct implications for how promotions are structured, communicated, and advertised to end customers.
What Did RocketNet’s Promotion Promise?
RocketNet advertised its Apollo 200 fibre package at a special promotional price as part of a summer campaign. The advertisement presented the offer as a straightforward deal — a discounted rate on its Apollo 200 fibre product. No prominent qualification indicated that any group of customers would be excluded.
The complaint was lodged by an existing RocketNet customer who attempted to switch from a higher-tier package to the advertised Apollo 200 deal. Upon contacting RocketNet, the customer was informed that the promotional pricing did not apply to existing users making package changes — it was available only to new sign-ups.
RocketNet defended its position by pointing to its terms and conditions, which explicitly state that existing customers who upgrade or downgrade their packages are excluded from accessing promotional pricing. The ISP argued that the terms were available and that customers should have consulted them before assuming eligibility.
How Did the ARB Rule?
The ARB’s Directorate was not persuaded by the terms-and-conditions defence. In its ruling on 19 March 2026, the Directorate found that the omission of this restriction constituted a material omission likely to mislead consumers, in breach of Clause 4.2.1 of Section II of the Code of Advertising Practice.
Clause 4.2.1 states that advertisements should not contain any statement or visual presentation which, directly or by implication, omission, ambiguity, inaccuracy, exaggerated claim or otherwise, is likely to mislead the consumer.
The Directorate drew a critical distinction: while not all terms and conditions need to appear in every advertisement, any condition that materially affects a consumer’s decision must be clearly disclosed upfront. The ARB concluded that a reasonable consumer would not assume they were excluded from a “special” promotional price simply because they were already a customer switching packages.
As a result, the ARB instructed its members not to accept the advertising in its current form unless it clearly states that the promotion is not available to existing customers.
📌 Partner Insight
This ruling establishes a principle that goes well beyond RocketNet. Any reseller running promotions — whether on fibre, UCaaS, or hosted PBX services — that exclude existing customers from special pricing must disclose that restriction prominently in the advertisement itself, not just in linked terms and conditions. If you have not reviewed your current promotional materials against this standard, you are exposed. For resellers already practising transparent promotional disclosure, this is a competitive differentiator worth emphasising: customers are increasingly aware of fine-print traps, and marketing that is upfront about eligibility builds trust that converts to retention.
What Does Clause 4.2.1 Actually Require?
The ARB’s Code of Advertising Practice is the self-regulatory framework governing advertising standards in South Africa. Clause 4.2.1 sits within Section II (General Principles) and targets misleading advertising in all its forms — not just outright falsehoods, but also omissions, ambiguities, and implications that create a false impression.
The key test is whether a reasonable consumer would be misled. In the RocketNet case, the ARB found that a reasonable consumer seeing a “special” promotional price on a fibre package would not automatically assume they were excluded simply because they already subscribed to a different RocketNet package.
This aligns with South Africa’s Consumer Protection Act (CPA), Section 41, which prohibits suppliers from failing to disclose a material fact or using ambiguity as to a material fact in marketing. While the ARB operates as a self-regulatory body rather than a statutory regulator, its rulings signal the standards that the broader market — including ICASA and the National Consumer Commission — expects to see upheld.
A Pattern of Telecoms Advertising Rulings in 2026
The RocketNet ruling is not an isolated case. South African telecoms providers have faced a notable series of ARB actions this year:
MTN’s “Free-to-Use” Router (January 2026): The Advertising Appeals Committee dismissed MTN’s appeal against a ruling that its Shesh@600 5G/LTE home internet package misleadingly described its router as “free-to-use.” Consumers were being charged a SIM activation fee of up to R553 before the router could be activated — a cost not disclosed in the advertising. The Appeals Committee confirmed that the existence of a SIM activation fee without clear and prominent qualification meant the router could not be described as “free-to-use”.
Checkers Sixty60 “Anywhere Delivery” (March 2026): While not a telecoms provider, the ARB’s ruling against Checkers Sixty60 in March 2026 reinforces the same Clause 4.2.1 principle. A TikTok advertisement implied delivery was available “anywhere” along the West Coast, when in reality coverage was limited. The ruling underscores that aspirational or exaggerated marketing claims about service availability will be held to the literal standard of what consumers can actually expect.
Historical telecoms cases include Rain’s “unlimited data” advertising and RSAWeb’s R1,000 switch offer, both of which were found misleading for omitting key conditions from promotional material.
📌 Partner Insight
The pattern is unmistakable — the ARB is actively scrutinising telecoms promotions, and the threshold for what counts as a “material omission” is getting lower. Resellers who have not yet been the subject of a complaint should not take that as evidence their marketing is compliant. Proactively audit every active promotion against the Clause 4.2.1 standard: does the ad contain any condition that, if a customer only learned about it after engaging, would change their decision? If the answer is yes, that condition needs to be in the ad itself. For resellers already running clean, transparent campaigns, consider using compliance as a sales differentiator — particularly in competitive tenders where enterprise customers increasingly evaluate vendor transparency alongside price.
What Does This Mean for SA Telecoms Resellers?
The practical implications for resellers are significant. Many resellers run promotions on behalf of vendors — discounted licensing, bundled handsets, free months of service, or reduced installation fees. These promotions frequently carry eligibility conditions: new customers only, minimum contract terms, specific package tiers, or geographic limitations.
The RocketNet ruling makes clear that any such condition which would alter a reasonable customer’s purchasing decision must appear in the promotional material itself. Specifically, resellers should consider:
Eligibility restrictions — If a promotion is for new customers only, or excludes upgrades and downgrades, this must be stated prominently in the ad, not buried in a linked terms page.
Pricing qualifications — If a promotional price requires a minimum contract term, or reverts to a higher rate after a period, the advertisement must make this clear.
Service availability — If a promoted service is only available in certain areas or on certain network operators, geographic limitations must be disclosed.
Bundle conditions — If a “free” device or service requires activation fees, minimum spend, or other hidden costs, the MTN router ruling shows this will not survive an ARB complaint.
📌 Partner Insight
The most commercially important takeaway is this: the ARB is telling the market that consumers are entitled to make decisions based on what the advertisement actually says, not what a terms-and-conditions document might clarify later. For resellers who have not yet built a compliance review step into their marketing approval process, this is the trigger to do so. For those who already have strong processes, the opportunity is to proactively communicate your transparent approach to prospective customers — particularly mid-market and enterprise buyers who are increasingly wary of fine-print surprises and will reward suppliers they trust.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the ARB ruling legally binding on RocketNet?
The ARB is a self-regulatory body, not a statutory regulator. Its rulings are binding on its members, and it instructs member media not to carry non-compliant advertising. However, the same principles are reflected in Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, which carries statutory force. A promotion found misleading by the ARB could also attract attention from the National Consumer Commission.
Do resellers need to include full terms and conditions in every ad?
No. The ARB explicitly acknowledged that not all terms and conditions need to appear in advertisements. The requirement is that any condition which materially affects a consumer’s decision must be disclosed upfront. A “new customers only” restriction on a promotional price is material; a standard 30-day cancellation policy likely is not.
What should resellers do to stay compliant?
Review all active promotional materials. For each promotion, identify any eligibility restriction, hidden cost, or service limitation that a reasonable customer would consider important when deciding to engage. If that condition is not visible in the ad itself, update the material. Consider implementing a compliance checklist as part of your marketing sign-off process.
Sources
- ARB Rules RocketNet Fibre Promotion Is Misleading — BizCommunity
- MTN’s Free Router Promise Trips Over Fine Print — News24
- Regulator Rules Against MTN for Misleading Advertising — Moneyweb
- Advertising Watchdog Rules Checkers Sixty60 TikTok Ad Is Misleading — News24
- Rain Concedes to ARB Ruling, Removes Misleading Adverts — StuffSA
- South African ISP’s R1,000 Promise Deemed Misleading — News24
- ARB Codes of Advertising Practice
- Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 — DTIC
About Advertising Standards on Telecoms-Channel
For more on regulatory developments affecting South African telecoms resellers, visit Industry Associations on Telecoms-Channel.
About the Author
Mechelle Gindra
Mechelle Gindra is the managing editor and lead content strategist at Telecoms-Channel, South Africa's dedicated intelligence platform for telecoms resellers, ICT distributors, and channel partners. She oversees the editorial team's AI-assisted content production pipeline, ensuring vendor news, market analysis, and regulatory updates are accurate, timely, and actionable for the SA telecoms channel community. With deep expertise in the South African telecoms reseller ecosystem, Mechelle directs coverage of vendor partner programmes, ICASA regulatory developments, wholesale market dynamics, and channel business strategy. She is responsible for maintaining Telecoms-Channel's editorial standards, fact-checking processes, and corrections policy.
