Bloomex against Stuff
Case Number: 3909
Council Meeting: 12 October 2026
Decision: Not Upheld
Publication: Stuff
Principle: Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Ruling Categories:
Accuracy
Balance, Lack Of
Overview
1. On 26 July 2026 Stuff published the article She ordered flowers to cheer up a friend. Her experience left her unhappy, and she’s not alone in its ‘Solving stuff’ series which investigates consumer concerns.
2. Andrew Lokhonia, Director of Operations of Bloomex New Zealand, complains that the article breaches Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance. He says Stuff published specific allegations made by an anonymous customer without putting them to Bloomex and did not give Bloomex a sufficient opportunity to respond. The complaint is not upheld.
The Article
3. The article reports the experience of two customers.
4. First, the article reports the experience of Bev Carrick, who ordered a bouquet from Bloomex after searching online for a florist in Waimauku. She says she specifically paid for same-day delivery because ‘same day’ was an important part of the transaction for her. She says, amongst other things, the flowers arrived a day late and did not resemble what was advertised. The report also includes her account of receiving eight instant customer service replies that repeated “much the same information” which made her suspect “she was corresponding with a bot”.
5. A second customer, a Whangārei man who did not want to be named, ordered a $201 bouquet from another online florist called From You Flowers for his wedding anniversary and paid for same day delivery. He said the flowers arrived a day late and were “a fraction of the supersize he paid for”, and that he had spent three months seeking a refund “but kept on getting the runaround”. Photographs compare the advertised bouquet with the one delivered. Bloomex, not From You Flowers, responded to his complaint about this.
6. Stuff also investigated the businesses online, identifying three websites using the same pictures, products and services. It searched the NZ Companies Office and found Bloomex’s directors were based overseas and appeared to be active in other jurisdictions. The article also reported that in 2024 the Federal Court of Australia ordered Bloomex to pay penalties after it admitted making false and misleading representations.
7. Stuff also sent questions to the Commerce Commission and Consumer NZ. It reported the Commerce Commission’s advice that it had received 182 reported concerns about Bloomex and its affiliated websites over two years and intended to begin a compliance project. Consumer NZ said it had received complaints around the quality of the flowers and gift hampers. The article also referred to Bloomex’s Trustpilot rating and critical reviews on Reddit and Google.
8. The report states that Stuff sent questions to Bloomex and rang its 0800 number explaining that the deadline was on Friday. The article said that no response was received before publication.
9. Bloomex made a complaint to Stuff with eight issues saying that they “had identified several factual inconsistencies, unsupported implications and material omissions” that taken together “present readers with a substantially distorted account of Bloomex and its New Zealand operations.”
10. As a result of the complaints, Stuff made several amendments to the article. The amendments included providing additional context that the Commerce Commission’s reported concerns were not findings of the breach of the Fair Trading Act, clarifying that the Commission’s work concerning fake boutiques and “ghost stores” was separate from its compliance work on Bloomex, and providing additional context about the Australian Court proceedings. Stuff also added Bloomex’s account that it attempted to contact both the purchaser and recipient before dispatch but wasn’t able to reach them.
11. After another exchange between the complainant and Stuff, Stuff updated the description of the reporter’s pre-publication contact with Bloomex. All the amendments are set out in an editor’s note dated 7 August 2026.
The Complaint
12. Bloomex acknowledged that Stuff made “several substantive amendments” to the article. The complaint therefore concerns the issues that remain after Stuff stated its editorial complaints process was complete.
13. Two substantive issues remain. Bloomex says the article breaches Principle (1) through “material omissions & publication of specific damaging allegations without a meaningful opportunity to respond”.
14. First, Bloomex says the specific allegations about the anonymous customer were never put to it. Before publication, Bloomex was not given sufficient details about the anonymous customer’s order or complaint. It was not told that he had purchased a Blossom Harmony, Supersize, paid about $201, received only a “fraction” of what he ordered, spent three months seeking a refund, or was given “the runaround”. The reporter’s questions were general ones about bouquet quality, same-day delivery, refunds, From You Flowers and customer service.
15. Bloomex does not challenge Stuff’s right to protect the customer’s identity but says Stuff could have provided more information without identifying him. It relies on Amanda Morgan v Stuff (Case 3833) and Canoe Racing New Zealand, Lisa Carrington and Kayla Imrie v Stuff (Case 3004), in which the Council observed that the obligation to seek comment can be stronger where allegations come from anonymous sources.
16. It notes that Stuff “acknowledges the issue” by “stating that some of the specific details subsequently reported about the anonymous customer’s experience were not individually put to Bloomex” and offering an opportunity to comment after publication. Bloomex says this offer doesn’t “provide for the pre-publication right of reply required for fair reporting of serious factual allegations”.
17. Bloomex also says the article’s original account of the reporter’s telephone call was factually incorrect. It says the recording shows the reporter was told that a director would be available on Monday. It noted that when the reporter said her deadline was Friday afternoon, the representative “did not agree to that deadline and did not promise a Friday response”. It notes the reporter did not make a further attempt to contact Bloomex before publication. Bloomex does not pursue this as a “continuing standalone inaccuracy” as Stuff corrected the account, but it relies on the call as “supporting evidence of the fairness issue”.
The Response
18. Stuff says there was a clear public interest in the article. It says the anonymous customer’s account was one part of a broader consumer story based on two customer experiences and information obtained from other sources including the Commerce Commission, Consumer NZ and the Australian Federal Court proceedings concerning Bloomex.
19. Stuff says its written questions put the substance of the customer complaints to Bloomex. Bloomex was told that Stuff had spoken to customers who had paid between $100 and $200 including for same-day delivery, and who said the flowers delivered did not resemble the products advertised online. The questions also addressed the volume and quality of the flowers, delivery, refunds, complaint handling and the relationship between Bloomex and From You Flowers. Bloomex did not respond, seek further particulars or ask for more time.
20. Stuff accepts that not every detail of the anonymous customer’s experience was individually put to Bloomex. It says, however, that Bloomex held the relevant transaction record and correspondence arising from that customer’s complaint over a period of about three months. The reporter had also reviewed documents confirming the product ordered, its size and price, and photographs of the flowers delivered. The customer’s comments were presented as his account of his experience rather than as findings made by Stuff.
21. Stuff also accepts that the article originally misreported part of the reporter’s telephone conversation with Bloomex and amended the article after reviewing the recording. It says the call nevertheless confirmed that its written questions had been received and that the Friday deadline had been communicated. Bloomex did not seek more time, ask that publication be delayed, or say it could not respond in that timeframe. After Bloomex complained, Stuff offered to consider comment on the specific matters from the anonymous customer, but no comments were received.
The Discussion
22. The remaining complaint raises a relatively narrow question of fairness. Principle (1) required Stuff to give Bloomex a fair opportunity to respond to material criticism before publication. The issue is whether Bloomex was told enough about the substance of the criticism to be able to answer it, rather than whether every detail of each customer’s experience was separately put to it.
23. The Media Council has compared Stuff’s pre-publication questions with what was ultimately reported. Bloomex was told that Stuff had spoken to customers who had paid between $100 and $200, including for same-day delivery, and who said the flowers received did not resemble the products advertised online. Stuff also asked about flowers arriving at a much smaller volume than advertised, delivery, refunds, complaint handling, repetitive customer-service responses and From You Flowers.
24. In the Council’s view, those questions put the substance of the Whangārei customer’s criticism to Bloomex. His precise purchase price, the product name, the three-month period seeking a refund and the customer’s description of being given “the runaround” added detail to that account but did not introduce materially different allegations. In particular, his complaint that he only received a “fraction” of what he had paid for was directly within the question about flowers arriving at a much smaller volume than advertised. The three-month period and “runaround” related to refunds and complaint handling, both matters that had expressly been put to Bloomex.
25. Bloomex relies on Canoe Racing New Zealand, Lisa Carrington and Kayla Imrie v Stuff, and Amanda Morgan v Stuff. Those decisions involved materially different circumstances, including significant allegations which had not been put to those criticised. Here, the substance of the customer criticism was put to Bloomex before publication. The fact that the customer was unnamed did not mean that every detail of the transaction had to be provided, so long as Bloomex was given enough information to understand and answer the criticism. The Council is satisfied Bloomex was given enough information.
26. It is also relevant that Bloomex did not respond to the questions, ask for particulars, say it couldn’t identify or investigate the complaints with the information it had, or ask for more time. Stuff says Bloomex held the transaction record and correspondence relating to the complaint and if it needed more information to respond, it did not say so.
27. The Council has also considered Bloomex’s reliance on the reporter’s telephone call. Stuff amended the original inaccurate description of that call after reviewing the recording. The corrected account shows that Bloomex confirmed receipt of Stuff’s email and was told of the Friday deadline. Bloomex does not pursue the original wording as a continuing standalone inaccuracy but relies on the call as evidence of unfairness.
28. While the staff member said the directors would be available on Monday, Bloomex did not seek an extension, ask that publication be delayed, or say that no response could be provided before then. The Council appreciates that the staff member may not have been the person responsible for responding to media enquiries. However, once Stuff had put the substance of the criticism to Bloomex and clearly communicated its deadline, it had the right to publish at its discretion.
29. Stuff later offered Bloomex an opportunity to comment specifically on the matters it said should have been put before publication. The Council agrees an offer would not substitute for an inadequate pre-publication opportunity to respond. However, it is satisfied that the substance of the criticism in this case had already been put to Bloomex and that it had been given a fair opportunity to respond.
30. The article concerned a legitimate consumer issue. The Council is satisfied that Bloomex was afforded a fair opportunity to respond and that there was no breach of Principle (1).
Decision: The complaint is not upheld
Council members considering the complaint were Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Hank Schouten, Tim Watkin, Guy MacGibbon, Scott Inglis, Deborah Morris, Jo Cribb, Judi Jones, Marie Shroff, Alison Thom, Andrew Chen, Susan Freeman-Greene.
Guy MacGibbon declared a conflict and did not vote.