So is this deceptive?

[bloomz]

I have been buying motorcycle parts in the last couple weeks, several different items.

Here's one example and they all have the same verbage

Jardine 2 into 2 drag exhaust for the VTX1800 Retro. FREE SHIPPING.


Should I turn them in for deceptive advertising?

Or is it just marketing, cuz I know shipping ain't free.

 

[David]

I have no problem with there add. I take it as shipping is included with the price. I think a problem in our industry is when a florist or and order gather misleads customers to think that another florist offers free delivery. Yes it appears that I am saying two different things. The problem with the second sentence is many times there isn’t enough money provided to the filling florist. The free or included delivery can not be provided. The sender ends up with a smaller flower arrangement. The filling florist may look bad even though they filled the order correctly.

 

[CHR]

Is the ad deceptive? In the US - maybe.

Because the selling company is directly providing the product and service, it can use the claim, but only for a limited time. It may be illegal, however, if that offer is continually used. From http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/guides/free.htm

(h) Frequency of offers. So that a "Free'' offer will be special and meaningful, a single size of a product or a single kind of service should not be advertised with a "Free'' offer in a trade area for more than 6 months in any 12-month period. At least 30 days should elapse before another such offer is promoted in the same trade area

Not sure about Canadian law.

There's a big difference between directly selling and shipping a motorcycle part (a specific item that is always the same) and a flower arrangement brokered to a third party for fulfillment.

The filling agent (delivering florist) is not obligated to provide the claim and can freely reduce the size of the delivered product to offset their delivery charge. In fact, there is no national 'regular price' only a 'suggest retail price.' WS's are specifically forbidden from requring members to sell specific products at specific prices so their agents/order-brokers have no basis for any 'free' claims except possibly in the area of service charges. And even then, they cannot be offered continuously (see above).

If a product or service usually is sold at a price arrived at through bargaining, rather than at a regular price, it is improper to represent that another product or service is being offered "Free'' with the sale. The same representation is also improper where there may be a regular price, but where other material factors such as quantity, quality, or size are arrived at through bargaining.

If your parts company transferred the order to another company that substituted a smaller or knock-off part to offset their cost of shipping, that would be illegal....

Think about it - Why do you rarely see large companies using 'free delivery' as an ongoing claim? Because they are in the crosshairs of both government regulators and their competitors.

I doubt you'd want to turn in one of these parts suppliers, but one of their competitors might.