Complaint: HelloPeter’s Biased Deletion of My Complaint

Subject: Formal Response to HelloPeter’s Reply Regarding Biased Deletion of Complaint To Whom It May Concern, Thank you for your response of 2 October 2025. I note, however, that it fails to address the substance of my complaint. Instead, you merely referred me to your “content guidelines” and suggested I resubmit. This response is not only insufficient but legally problematic. 1. Constitutional Right to Freedom of Expression Section 16(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 guarantees my right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to impart information and ideas. The deletion of my complaint without notice, explanation, or due process constitutes an infringement of this right. While freedom of expression is not absolute, limitations are governed by Section 16(2) and the limitations clause (Section 36). The Constitutional Court has repeatedly held that limitations must be reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society (see S v Makwanyane 1995 (3) SA 391 (CC)). Your unilateral deletion, without notice or reasons, fails this test. 2. Consumer Protection Act (CPA) Your platform markets itself as an independent consumer complaints platform. In doing so, you fall within the definition of a “supplier” of services in terms of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008. Section 48 of the CPA prohibits unfair, unreasonable, or unjust contract terms or conduct. Section 41 further prohibits misleading representations. By claiming independence while deleting complaints without explanation, you are in breach of Sections 41 and 48, as your conduct creates the misleading impression that all consumers have an equal right to voice grievances — when in fact, selective censorship occurs. 3. Administrative Fairness & PAJA Although HelloPeter is a private platform, your function — acting as a gatekeeper for consumer redress — is quasi-public in nature. As such, principles of administrative justice apply. The Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (PAJA) requires that any decision which materially and adversely affects rights must be lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair. Procedural fairness requires at minimum:

• Notice of the intended action (deletion),
• Reasons for the decision, and
• An opportunity to respond.

Your conduct failed on all three counts. 4. Defamation Concerns You suggest my complaint may have been “defamatory”. The law of defamation in South Africa (see National Media Ltd v Bogoshi 1998 (4) SA 1196 (SCA)) recognises the defence of truth and public interest. My complaint was based on verifiable facts of my consumer experience and therefore enjoys legal protection. Deletion under the guise of preventing defamation is therefore a misapplication of law. 5. Competition Law Implications By deleting complaints against certain corporates while allowing others, you may also be engaging in anti-competitive or collusive conduct by providing preferential treatment. This raises potential concerns under the Competition Act 89 of 1998, particularly Section 8 (abuse of dominance). 6. Demand for Remedy In light of the above, I demand the following within 7 (seven) days:

1. A written explanation of the legal basis for deleting my complaint.
2. Immediate reinstatement of my original complaint.
3. Written confirmation that HelloPeter applies its guidelines uniformly and not selectively.

Failing compliance, I will:

• Lodge a formal complaint with the National Consumer Commission,
• Refer the matter to the Competition Commission, and
• Pursue legal remedies for misrepresentation, unfair practice, and violation of constitutional rights.

Make no mistake: deleting consumer complaints without transparency or justification is not merely a matter of “content moderation” — it undermines consumer rights, freedom of expression, and the integrity of your platform. I await your prompt and lawful response. Yours faithfully,
Jan Venter