Case detailB a c k
Article 5 1.
Article 6 1. (b)
|National ID||Slovak Trade Inspection, 16/12/2010, ref. code: P/0519/01/2010|
|Common name||Decision type||Administrative decision, first degree|
|Court||Slovenská obchodná inšpekcia (Bratislava), Inšpektorát Slovenskej obchodnej inšpekcie so sídlom v Bratislave pre Bratislavský kraj||Plaintiff(s)|
|Court translation||Slovak Trade Inspection, (Bratislava) Slovak Trade Inspection, Inspectorate with its registered seat in Bratislava, Bratislava district||Defendant(s)||Lidl Slovenská republika, v.o.s.|
|Keywords||advertisement, inaccurate information, informed decision, misleading commercial practices, packaging|
+ Expand all
It is a misleading commercial practice to provide false information about a product's composition and its accessories.
The defendant used a leaflet to promote a Video Grabber product for digitalization of analogue video recordings (VHS, VIDEO8 and Hi8).
Right next to the product, the content of the package was displayed. One part of the content depicted, was a CD-ROM with a power unit.
However, in reality, the package did not include such an accessory item. It only included a CD with an installation and application software.
Is it a misleading commercial practice to provide false information about a product's composition and its accessories?
The administrative body decided that the defendant's conduct constituted a breach of the Slovak Consumer Protection Act and violated the prohibition on unfair misleading commercial practices.
The defendant's conduct caused, or was likely to cause, an average consumer to take a transactional decision that he would not have taken otherwise. The defendant distorted the economic behaviour of an average consumer. The court held that the consumer was under the false impression that he would receive a product which was not provided by the trader. The content of the package as depicted, did not correspond to the actual content offered.
The administrative body thus established that by making use of such an unfair commercial practice, the defendant has breached its duties prescribed by law.
|URL Decision||Decision full text|
The administrative body imposed a fine of € 1.000.
|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.|