Case detailB a c k
Article 6 2. (a)
||National ID||Ombudsman of the Consumer 23rd of April 2010 (Protocol No 906)|
|Common name||Decision type||Other|
|Court||Συνήγορος του καταναλωτή||Plaintiff(s)||Ombudsman of the Consumer|
|Court translation||Ombudsman of the Consumer||Defendant(s)||Association of Cars Importers Agents|
|Keywords||comparative advertising, misleading commercial practices, misleading omissions, price comparison|
+ Expand all
It is unfair for a trader to advertise a car by comparing its price to the prices of competitors, when the trader's price does not include the special car registration tax, while the competitors' prices do include this tax. All public announcements of prices that refer to the same characteristics of a category of products must allow consumers to compare products of the same category based on the same criteria for all suppliers.
Is it an unfair commercial practice to not include the special tax on a product in the advertised price for this product, in particular when the price is then compared to the price of other traders who do include this tax?
The Ombudsman stated that all public announcements of prices that refer to the same characteristics of a category of products or have the same target:
|URL Decision||Decision full text|
The Ombudsman of the Consumer suggested to the Association of Car Importers Agent to deal with this issue by proceeding with a direct and austere recommendation to its members to publish the prices of the new vehicles in a legitimate way that respects the consumers’ rights of transparent information and abides by the principles of healthy competition.
|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.|