No code of conduct for comparison sites
March 27, 2010 by admin
Filed under News, News Utilities
Consumers that use price comparison sites will continue to be without protection following the collapse of a proposed code of conduct for price comparison sites.
As a result of the collapse of the collapse of the proposed regulations consumers could easily be misled with inaccurate information and false claims, according to the former boss of a comparison site.
The code of conduct was part of a new voluntary code, but a number of price comparison giants boycotted the code. The code had been seen as a final attempt to try and stop hard and fast regulations about sales practices being brought in by the government.
Known as the Comparison Consortium the code of practice was meant to provide a stamp of quality relating to the sales practices of these sites.
The consortium collapsed as a result of lack of interest, with nowhere near enough firms signing up to the voluntary code for the plans to go ahead.
The collapse of the code means that comparison sites can continue to provide information about the products and services that they are selling with minimal regulation and control, which could prove risky for consumers who could easily be misled.
Comparison sites have enjoyed great success over recent years, but there have been concerns over the claims that they make, the way that some operate, and how misleading the information that they provide might be.
The head of the Comparison Consortium, who was also the head of a popular comparison website, Sean Gardner, stated: ‘Trying to bring many of these people together felt like herding a group of angry cats. is hard to avoid the conclusion that many consumers will continue to be misled.
Tags: Affiliate marketing, business, comparison sites, regulations consumers, final attempt, Recreation and Sports, Price comparison services, siteIt is immensely frustrating.’ An official from the consumer campaign group, Which?, added: ‘These are ruthlessly commercial organisations trying to make as much money as possible. They are not necessarily working in the best interests of the consumer.’


