European Commission

 

Case detail



Directive article Article 2 (b)
Article 5 1.
Article 5 4. (a)
Article 7 2.
Article 13 al1
National ID Consumer Rights Protection Centre Decision Nr. E03-KREUD-11
Country Latvia Decision date 07/04/2011
Common name Lattelecom Decision type Administrative decision, first degree
Court Patērētāju Tiesību Aizsardzības Centrs (Rīga) Plaintiff(s)
Court translation Consumer Rights Protection Centre (Riga) Defendant(s) SIA “Lattelecom”
Subject misleading omissions
Keywords terms & conditionsadvertisementmaterial informationmisleading commercial practicesmisleading omissionstelephone

+ Expand all

Headnote

Constitutes an unfair commercial practice, when presenting material information in an almost unreadable way for an average consumer.

Facts

The defendant, a telecom company, organized a promotional campaign through several media channels (including television and internet) with respect to its electronic communications services.

In the television advertisement, the fact that the price advertised related only to the first six months of the subscription agreement (after which the price was automatically increased), was mentioned only at the very end of the advertisement, and this during six seconds only. This information was given by 51 small, black and for an average consumer practically unreadable words at the bottom of the advertisement.

The Consumer Rights Protection Centre (CRPC) accused the defendant of a misleading commercial practice by omitting to provide the consumer essential information, i.e. the price of the services.

Legal issue

Does it constitute an unfair commercial practice, when material information is presented in an almost unreadable way for an average consumer?

Decision

In its decision, CRPC found that by using almost unreadable characters to give material information, the defendant did not comply with its duty to include material information in the advertisement and, therefore, omitted material information and performed a misleading commercial practice.

CRPC also substantiated its view by referring to previous cases of the District Court of Administrative Cases, which had established that advertisements using excessively small characters and in which information is provided that is not perceptible well enough and is not clearly understandable, are to be considered deficient and therefore inconsistent with provisions of the law.

  URL Decision Decision full text
EN N/A
LV http://www.ptac.gov.lv/upload/ptac_lemumi/2011/lemums_nr-e03-kreud-11_sia_lattelecom_izraksts.pdf

Result

Trader was penalized for having committed an unfair commercial practice.

Additional information

Date Description URL
There is no events for this case.

Related case(s)

National ID Common Name Subject Country Link type
There is no related cases for this case.

Legal Literature

Title Author
There is no Legal Literature for this case.