Article 5 1.
Article 6 1.
Article 7 1.
Annex I al2 31. -
|National ID|| EWHC 106 (Ch)|
|Country||United Kingdom||Decision date||02/02/2011|
|Common name||OFT v Purely Creative Ltd||Decision type||Court decision, first degree|
|Court||High Court of Justice, Chancery Division Companies Court (London)||Plaintiff(s)||The Office of Fair Trading|
|Court translation||High Court of Justice, Chancery Division Companies Court (London)||Defendant(s)||Purely Creative Limited, Strike Lucky Games Limited, The Winners Club Limited, Mcintyre & Dodd Marketing Limited, Dodd Marketing Limited, Adrian Williams, Wendy Ruck, Catherine Cummings and Peter Henry.|
|Keywords||average consumer, black list, material information, misleading advertising, prizes, transactional decision|
+ Expand all
(1) The principle of requiring a consumer to spend money in order to claim their prize, is not a breach of paragraph 31 of the Annex to the UCP Directive as long as the cost is minimal in comparison to the value of the prize and this is fully and fairly disclosed.
The plaintiff is a general enforcer, empowered to apply for enforcement orders.
The first to fifth defendants were all associated companies in a group. Each of the first to fourth defendants was a promoter of prize draw competitions to consumers, and the first, third and fourth defendants were each responsible for one or more of five or more specified promotions carried out in 2008. The fifth defendant was the immediate parent company of the fourth defendant and, in addition, controlled the second defendant. The sixth to ninth defendants were officers of the various companies.
(1) Does Annex I, nr. 31 of the UCP Directive allow to charge consumers a small amount in order for them to claim their prize in a promotion that creates the impression that a consumer has already won a prize?
(2) Does Annex I, nr. 31 of the UCP Directive apply when it is not explicitly stated that the consumer has won a prize?
(3) How do the concepts of "average consumer", "transactional decision" and "material information" apply in the context of such promotion ?
(1) It was held by the High Court that the principle of requiring a consumer to spend money in order to claim a prize, is not a breach of paragraph 31 of Annex I to the UCP Directive, as long as the cost was minimal in comparison to the value of the prize and it was fully and fairly disclosed in the document informing the consumer of their win.
|URL Decision||Decision full text|
The court considered the defendants' promotions in detail and concluded that they contravened the UCP Directive and the regulations. It concluded that an enforcement order should be made.
|There is no events for this case.|
|National ID||Common Name||Subject||Country||Link type|
|There is no related cases for this case.|
|Office of Fair Trading v Purely Creative Ltd: the net tightens on exponents of sharp commercial practices||O. BRAY and M. STARMER|