Case detailB a c k
Article 6 1.
Annex I al1 6.
|Common name||Decision type||Other|
|Court||Primeira Secção do Júri de Ética do Instituto Civil da Autodisciplina da Comunicação Comercial (Lisboa)||Plaintiff(s)||Unidentified consumer|
|Court translation||First Division of the Ethics Panel of the Civil Institute for Self-Regulation in Commercial Communication (Lisbon)||Defendant(s)||Grupo Pestana Pousadas – Investimentos Turísticos S.A.|
|Keywords||bait advertising, bait and switch, black list, misleading advertising, price information|
+ Expand all
Advertising a hotel promotion starting at a particular price and then informing prospective customers that it is not available, instead offering a similarly-named promotion with a higher price range constitutes misleading advertising and is an unfair commercial practice under article 6 (1) (a) and under point 6 of Annex I of the Directive.
The defendant is a large Portuguese hotel chain that placed an advertisement on its website offering a promotion entitled "Pacote Idade de Ouro – 3 Noites" (“Golden Age Package Deal – 3 Nights”). This advertisement stated that the promotion was available for prices of €80 and upwards, which referred to the price per room for a stay of three (3) nights in one of the participating hotels and also included breakfast. The terms and conditions of the promotion indicated that the offer was valid until March 2012.
Does advertising a hotel promotion starting at a particular price and then informing prospective customers that it is not available, instead offering a similarly-named promotion with a higher price range, constitute an unfair commercial practice?
The court considered that a trader offering goods or services to consumers at a particular price and then subsequently refusing to provide consumers with those goods or services at that price, gives rise to grounds for suspicion that the trader intends to promote a different good or service. Such a commercial practice is deemed to be unfair in all circumstances, as per point 6 of Annex I of the Directive.
|URL Decision||Decision full text|
The plaintiff’s allegations were upheld and the defendant was ordered to remove the advertisement from its website until it was amended accordingly.
|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.|