Case detailB a c k
Article 5 2. (b)
Article 6 1. (b)
Article 7 1.
Article 7 4. (c)
|National ID||Ombudsman of the Consumer 10th of March 2011 (Νo of protocol 2532)|
|Common name||Decision type||Other|
|Court||Συνήγορος του καταναλωτή||Plaintiff(s)||Consumer|
|Court translation||Ombudsman of the Consumer||Defendant(s)||Mobile telephony company|
|Keywords||advertisement, false impression, misleading commercial practices, misleading omissions, telephone|
+ Expand all
A consumer sent a complaint claiming that although he was visiting an isolated Greek island, he received extraordinary charges from the defendant, a mobile phone company, because his calls were charged as international calls.
In particular, he was informed by the company’s customer service, that although he was in Greece, he had been connected to the Turkish network because the company’s signal could not reach some parts of this specific island. He was therefore charged for roaming although he was still in Greek territory.
Does the reference on a trader's website to a geographical map indicating the network coverage provided by that trader, however without specifying that this map relates to population coverage rather than to geographical coverage, constitute a misleading commercial practice?
It was held by the Ombudsman that by placing a geographical map on the website without mentioning that this refers to the population coverage and not the geographical coverage, the defendant’s aim was to mislead the consumers.
The defendant’s online advertisement created the impression to the average consumer that he would normally receive mobile services through the defendant’s local network even in the most isolated locations of Greece. The consumers could not expect having to be provided with international roaming services.
The message was also considered misleading by the Ombudsman because, apart from the fact that it exclusively uses geographical terms, there was no explicit reference to the population coverage. Even if this had been the case, the consumers could also be confused about the difference between the terms "population" and "geographical coverage".
|URL Decision||Decision full text|
The Ombudsman of the Consumer recommended to the defendant to withdraw the advertising campaign from all media.
|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.|