24 February 2005
Tony’s Vineyard fined $3,000 for misleading and
out of date website representations
Waitakere based Tony’s Vineyard Restaurant has been fined $3,000 plus $260 court costs in the Waitakere District Court
after pleading guilty to breaching the Fair Trading Act in relation to website promotion of its menu and prices.
Over a six month period, the restaurant’s website made various representations about the availability and price of
certain meals on the menu. A Commission investigation revealed that many of the meals were not actually available for
order at the restaurant, and others were not available at the listed price. In some circumstances, the website price
varied between 17 and 36 percent cheaper than the in-house menu.
The Commission received a complaint from a customer of Tony’s Vineyard, who had notified both the restaurant and the
Restaurant Association of New Zealand that the website menu was out of date and misleading. The Commission’s
investigation revealed that while the restaurant owner was well aware of the misrepresentations, no steps were taken to
stop the offending and customers continued to be misled.
“If a business chooses to promote and advertise its services on the internet, it should be aware of the need to maintain
the accuracy or truth of those representations,” said Commission Chair Paula Rebstock.
“It is not enough to allow the restaurant owner to say that the website is outdated for reasons of lack of time or lack
of technical knowledge, especially given the growth of this form of advertising and the potential reach of the
misleading information.” “The internet is a growing form of advertising, not just for big businesses but also for small
businesses. The misleading impression generated by website representations is very important because it is a gateway to
encouraging customers to the restaurant,” added Ms Rebstock.
Judge Rota noted in sentence that Parliament had taken a strident view on misrepresentation and has accordingly
indicated to the Court where an appropriate sentence may lie. His Honour agreed with the Commission that the breaches
were not inadvertent.
“They may have become so by virtue of becoming out of date but once the disparity was brought to the attention of the
restaurant owner by the complainant and then by the Restaurant Association, the restaurateur took no steps to correct
the disparity,” said Judge Rota.
ENDS