Mondo provided an inferior Samsung A73 5G product to that which was advertised.

Doing a sales call review retrospectively is irrelevant. You ADVERTISED a single option variant (i.e. 256 GB internal storage and 8 GB of RAM) on your website which is what I have responded to as a consumer. I have proof of your advert as it relates to your offer - which is STILL live on your website as of today! Nowhere does it say that the product that I would be receiving would be the inferior 128GB/6GB variant, which is exactly what was shipped to me. This is tantamount to *****. I expect MONDO to remedy the matter ASAP.

Once again,

I responded to an offer as it was communicated to me on MONDO's website. MONDO's offer (i.e. your digital creative of your advert) stipulated that, at a cost of R519 / month over 24 months, that I would be receiving a Samsung A73 5G with 256 GB internal memory and 8 GB of RAM. This consumer communication is very important as it translates to an expectation on the part of those who take MONDO up on their offer. There was (and at the time of me typing this) NO mention on your website of an inferior variant of the Samsung A73 5G being attached to the subscription that you advertised.

That indicates that you did not operate in good faith insofar as your sales call was concerned. The onus should not rest on me, the consumer, to listen out for product specifics as granular as the memory configuration of the device that was being sold. Mondo made NO distinction of two available options of the product on its website. So how could I have anticipated that I would be receiving anything BUT what you were advertising!...

This case has been taken on by the Advertising Complaints Commission South Africa and MONDO will soon be receiving a ruling on the matter. The underlying formula for my complaint stands;

I signed up for product "X", and MONDO provided product "Y."
I am not paying for product "Y", I am paying for product "X".

MONDO's advert should match what they ultimately provide to their consumers. That is a basic and reasonable expectation. MONDO's business practices are ********* to say the least. I will publish the ruling of the Advertising Complaints Commission South Africa here when it comes through. I am confident of it that MONDO will be found to be at fault.

I have had it in writing from the Advertising Review Board of South Africa that MONDO have in fact NOT acted in good faith insofar as delivering an inferior product to that which was advertised at a given price point. To anyone that might be reading this, I encourage you to find the ruling at the following link under Fritz Vs Mondo. I will send this finding to local news agencies in order to bring attention to MONDO's ************ business practices http://arb.org.za/2022-rulings.html

I reject Mondo's opinion that this is an MTN issue. Mondo should take full responsibility for their role in this blunder. The Mondo company does not get to sweep my complaint under the proverbial rug with their pathetic cut and paste replies. The creative image that indicates the feature-set of the product which I signed up for is STILL on MONDO's website! I did NOT visit the mtn.co.za website to apply for my contract. I app**** within the Mondo online ecosystem. Your argument that the sales call did not mention the hardware configuration of the device is weak and insulting to say the least. To that end the Samsung A73 5G device that was advertised on Mondo's website was not offered in two different memory variant options. That is still the case as of writing this reply. Mondo has an absolute responsibility to ensure that what they offer on their website by way of their consumer communications, is in fact what they deliver to the customer. I will be sharing this complaint on as many social media pages as I can find.