Case detailB a c k
Article 5 1.
Article 5 2.
Article 6 1. (b)
Annex I al1 5.
|Common name||Decision type||Administrative decision, first degree|
|Court||Gazdasági Versenyhivatal (Budapest)||Plaintiff(s)||Procedure initiated by the Competition Authority|
|Court translation||Competition Authority (Budapest)||Defendant(s)||Penny Market Kereskedelmi Kft. (“Penny Market”)|
|Keywords||bait advertising, black list, misleading commercial practices, price reductions|
+ Expand all
Advertising a special sales promotion, in which specific products can be purchased at a significantly reduced price on certain days and hours, constitutes prohibited bait advertising when the amount of discounted products made available, is unreasonably limited.
The defendant made a sales promotion in June 2009, in which it stated that on certain days and hours, specific products could be purchased at a reduced price (at a price which was used 13 years ago). However, the defendant was not able to supply some of these products in a reasonable quantity during the sales promotion. In most cases, it limited the amount of the discounted products that could be purchased by the consumers.
Does it constitute "bait advertising" if a trader deliberately limits the amount of discounted products that can be purchased by consumers, because it cannot supply these products in a reasonable quantity?
On the basis of the available information, the Competition Authority decided that the defendant had to have reasonable grounds to believe that it was able to supply the reduced priced product in the necessary quantity.
As the reduced price product could only be purchased during predefined hours, this should have been taken into account by the defendant. The defendant had no right to "transfer" the problems in connection with such promotion to the consumers.
|URL Decision||Decision full text|
The Competition Authority established that the defendant breached the provisions of the Hungarian Unfair Commercial Practices Act, and therefore imposed a fine in the amount of HUF 30 million (approximately 123.000 EUR).
|There is no events for this case.|
|National ID||Common Name||Subject||Country||Link type|
|There is no related cases for this case.|
|There is no Legal Literature for this case.|