If it sounds too good to be true, it usually is — as these brides found out when they entered a ‘competition’ to win a R500 000 wedding.
The National Consumer Tribunal has fined a trustee of Droom Troue, a reality television show, R250 000 for contravening the Consumer Protection Act and ordered her to refund a total of R265 550 to seven participants who filed complaints.
The National Consumer Commission (NCC) referred the matter to the tribunal after receiving eleven complaints from consumers about Lana-Jane de Jager, a trustee of the Shabach Trust, trading as Droom Troue.
Droom Troue was a reality television show that recruited participants through a competition where they were promised the chance to “win a dream wedding” worth R500 000. The NCC says De Jager promoted this competition across various platforms, including bridal magazines and social media.
Participants had to follow Bruidsgids on Instagram, like Droom Troue on Facebook and text “Droom Troue” along with their names and e-mail addresses to 36996 at R5 per text message.
ALSO READ: Tribunal fines car dealer and home renovator for not respecting consumers’ rights
Brides complained to the NCC about Droom Troue
The NCC received complaints from dissatisfied participants about Doom Troue between August 2022 and April 2023. When the NCC investigated the matter, it found that after entering the competition, Droom Troue informed participants that they had won the prize.
And this is where it became too good to be true: to claim the prize, participants were required to sign a memorandum of understanding and pay a non-refundable “commitment” fee of between R25 000 and R60 000 to claim the prize of a wedding valued at R500 000. After paying up, the participants did not receive any further communication from De Jager.
The NCC investigation concluded that by informing participants that they had won a competition while there was no competition, De Jager contravened section 36 (2)(a)(i) of the CPA. Section 36 (2)(a)(i) states that nobody is allowed to directly or indirectly inform someone that they have won a competition if no competition was held.
ALSO READ: Tribunal fines used car dealer R100 000 for disregarding consumer’s rights
NCC case at tribunal about Droom Troue
Referring the matter to the tribunal, the NCC asked it to order that De Jager and Droom Troue contravened section 36(2)(a)(ii), (iii) and (iv), section 36(3)(a) and section 36(5)(c) to (f), as well as an order for an interdict prohibiting them from engaging in the same conduct in future.
The NCC also asked the tribunal to order that De Jager and Droom Troue refund the complainants the amounts they paid with interest, as well as pay an administrative penalty of R1 million.
While the tribunal found that there was no competition, Droom Troue’s memorandum of understanding referred to the complainants as “participants” participating in the competition or competition process. According to the tribunal, this gave consumers the impression that the competition they were entering existed.
In addition, the tribunal determined that the CPA provides that “if any provision of the CPA, read in its context, can reasonably be construed to have more than one meaning, the tribunal or court must prefer the meaning that best promotes the spirit and purposes of the CPA.
“In this context, the tribunal found that the definition of a participant includes an instance such as this. The fact that no competition took place does not mean the complainants cannot be viewed as participants, since they still participated in the competition process, which we now know was just a ruse.”
ALSO READ: Braai Block restaurant chain slapped with R1m fine for ‘ripping off consumers’
Tribunal finds Droom Troue intentionally misled brides
Section 4(5)(b) of the CPA states that in any dealings with the consumer in the ordinary course of business, nobody is allowed to engage in any conduct that is unconscionable, misleading, deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceive.
The tribunal found that the conduct of De Jager and Droom Troue was intended to intentionally mislead and deceive multiple consumers, displaying little or no regard for the spirit and purpose of the CPA.
Therefore, the tribunal ruled that De Jager and Droom Troue contravened sections 4(5)(b) and 36(2)(a)(i) of the CPA and found their actions unconscionable and declared the conduct prohibited.
The tribunal imposed an administrative fine of R250 000 on De Jager and ordered her to refund the affected seven complainants a sum of R265 550.
ALSO READ: Consumer Tribunal fines Cell C R500k for unfair, unreasonable and unjust conditions
Droom Troue’s submission to the tribunal
De Jager opposed the matter and denied that she contravened the provisions of the CPA. She submitted that Droom Troue is a reality television show and that the complainants were carefully selected to participate in it, not chosen by lot or chance.
She also submitted that Droom Troue is not a promotional competition as defined in the CPA, but instead is a reality television show conceptualised in 2018 and which ended in 2024. The complainants were selected to be participants in the show and not a promotional competition.
She also said she and Droom Troue did not enter into any agreement with the complainants to supply goods or services in exchange for money. De Jager also submitted that Droom Troue does not sell any goods or render any services for money and is therefore not a business as defined in section 36.
In addition, she said participants were not selected by “lot or chance”, as almost all participants won the prize after a careful selection process. The relationship between De Jager was purely contractual and not subject to the provisions of section 36 of the CPA.
ALSO READ: Consumer Tribunal finds another three used car dealers guilty of prohibited conduct
Brides knew about ‘commitment fee’ to be part of Droom Troue – De Jager
De Jager also submitted that the participants were always aware of the commitment fee that had to be paid to secure the potential bride and groom’s commitment to follow through with the wedding. She said the commitment fee was introduced to curb wasted costs, effort and time to ensure that the wedding would take place and could be aired on television.
She did not believe that the payments were consideration or payment as defined in the CPA, while the so-called goods or services were bequests gifted to the couple. Clause 27 of the MOU clearly stipulates that the commitment fee is a nonrefundable payment to ensure the participants are committed to following through with the wedding, she said.
Although the tribunal accepted that it was not a competition, it noted in its judgement that none of the advertisements included in the case record indicate that participants were being recruited to participate in a reality show.
The tribunal also said the fact that no competition took place does not mean the complainants cannot be viewed as participants since they still participated in the competition process, which “we now know was just a ruse”.
ALSO READ: Tribunal fines car repairer R100 000 for being ‘dishonest and contemptuous’
Droom Troue and De Jager deceived consumers, making them think it was a competition
In addition, the Tribunal found that De Jager and Droom Troue, through their conduct in recruiting potential participants for their television show, intentionally set out to mislead and deceive consumers into thinking that they were entering a competition to win a prize and signed an MOU to that effect.
“By their conduct, De Jager and Droom Troue set out to intentionally mislead and deceive multiple consumers and displayed little or no regard for the spirit and purpose of the CPA. The tribunal finds their conduct unconscionable.”
The tribunal declared the conduct of De Jager and Droom Troue prohibited and granted an interdict prohibiting De Jager from engaging in the same or similar prohibited conduct in the future.
De Jager must also refund the seven consumers the amounts between R25 000 and R46 400 that they paid.
Hardin Ratshisusu, acting commissioner of the NCC, welcomed the tribunal’s judgement.
“Consumers should be careful when participating in schemes with a promise of winning money or other benefits.
“In this case, consumers were deceived and promised a dream wedding and robbed of their hard-earned cash. Importantly, this case affirms the role of the CPA in guarding against misleading schemes disguised as promotions targeted at consumers.”
