Annex I al2 31.
||National ID||Ombudsman of the Consumer 12nd of November 2009 (No of protocol 3664)|
|Common name||Decision type||Other|
|Court||Συνήγορος του καταναλωτή||Plaintiff(s)||Ombudsman of the Consumer|
|Court translation||Ombudsman of the Consumer||Defendant(s)||Company (not named)|
|Keywords||black list, games of chance, price information, prizes, professional diligence|
+ Expand all
Creating the impression towards consumers that they are likely to win a prize competition based solely on chance, while in reality all consumers can "win" the prize competition by paying a considerable amount of money in an indirect way (although this was not clearly communicated to the consumers), constitutes an unfair commercial practice.
The Ombudsman of the Consumer tracked down a leaflet which was included in a daily newspaper of wide publication. The leaflet urged consumers to participate in a competition that was supposed to offer money to anyone that could find the same three symbols after scratching a specific area of the leaflet.
Is it unfair to organise a prize competition that gives a consumer the impression that he is in a special position by having scratched three identical symbols (while in fact every scratch card would show these three identical symbols), and then requires the consumer to call an expensive telephone number to claim the prize?
The Ombudsman held that the presentation of the competition and the methods to attract consumers constitute a clear unfair commercial practice, since:
The Ombudsman of the Consumer :
|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.|