Case detailB a c k
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|
|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”|
|Keywords||terms & conditions, advertisement, material information, misleading commercial practices, misleading omissions, telephone|
+ Expand all
Constitutes an unfair commercial practice, when presenting material information in an almost unreadable way for an average consumer.
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.
Does it constitute an unfair commercial practice, when material information is presented in an almost unreadable way for an average consumer?
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|
Trader was penalized for having committed an unfair commercial practice.
|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.|