Case detailB a c k
Article 5 2. (b)
Article 6 1. (d)
|National ID||Decision no. RBG-1/2011|
|Common name||Decision type||Administrative decision, first degree|
|Court||Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów, Delegatura w Bydgoszczy||Plaintiff(s)||Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów|
|Court translation||The President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection, Delegature in Bydgoszcz||Defendant(s)||Fabryka Zdrowia Wierzbowski i Wspólnicy Spółka jawna w upadłości układowej with its registered office in Ostróda|
|Keywords||discounts, misleading commercial practices, price information, price reductions|
+ Expand all
Suggesting the existence of a discount by publishing on a website an applicable price for products in combination with a crossed out higher price (which is the price recommended by the industry to sell those products) and an indication of an amount equal to the difference between the higher and the lower price accompanied by the notion "saved" constitutes an unfair commercial practice when the trader has never applied the crossed out higher price, since the false impression is created that the higher price was the price previously applicable in the company of the trader.
Defendant is a business entity which operates an on-line pharmacy.
Does the indication on a website of a crossed out higher price which is recommended by the suppliers of the trader, in combination with the indication of an applicable lower price and the indication of the price difference between these two prices, without the trader indicating that the crossed out higher price has never been used by the trader in its commercial activities, constitute an unfair commercial practice?
The President ruled that the defendant breached the prohibition on unfair commercial practices by publishing two prices on the trader's website, the higher of which has never been applied by the trader in its commercial activity. Such commercial practice is contrary to article 5 section 1 and section 2 point 1 and section 3 in connection with article 4 section 1 and 2 of the Act on Unfair Commercial Practice.
|URL Decision||Decision full text|
The commercial practice of the defendant was found to be unfair.
|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.|