I love when the right and big corporations use the 'free speech' (or in this case, 'freedom of expression') argument from everything to excusing defamation and libel to putting out false claims about products.
The legal battle with Rogers began in November 2010, when the bureau went to court to levy a $10-million penalty for a "misleading advertising" campaign involving the company's Chatr discount cellphone service. The bureau is also asking the court to order Rogers to pay restitution to affected customers and refrain from engaging in similar campaigns for the next decade.?
The national advertising campaign, launched with the entry of upstart competitors like Wind Mobile in the market, claimed that Chatr had "fewer dropped calls than new wireless carriers" and its customers have "no worries about dropped calls."?
The bureau says it conducted an investigation, which involved an extensive review of technical data obtained from a number of sources, and concluded there was "no discernible differences in dropped call rates between Rogers' discount service and new entrants.I bet those Charter or Rights haters are just fine with Rogers using it to achieve dubious ends. And who is Rogers' lawyer anyway? Ezra Levant?