Article 2 (d)
Article 6 1.
Annex I al1 1.
Annex I al1 9.
|Common name||Decision type||Administrative decision, first degree|
|Court||Lietuvos Respublikos konkurencijos taryba (Vilnius)||Plaintiff(s)|
|Court translation||Competition Council of the Republic of Lithuania (Vilnius)||Defendant(s)||UAB “Investment house”|
|Keywords||advertisement, black list, false impression, investments, legal rights, misleading advertising, misleading commercial practices|
+ Expand all
Advertising services which are subject to an official approval and where the trader does not posses such approval, constitutes an unfair commercial practice by falsely stating or otherwise creating an impression that a product can legally be sold (item 9 of Annex 1, UCP Directive).
The defendant promoted its services by advertising investment opportunities.
However, the defendant did not posses a license to provide investment services.
Does advertising services which are subject to an official approval and where the trader does not posses such approval, constitute an unfair commercial practice by falsely stating or otherwise creating an impression that a product can legally be sold (item 9 of Annex 1, UCP Directive)?
The Council referred to the conclusions of the investigation by the Lithuanian Securities Commission suggesting that the services advertised by the defendant were subject to an official approval.
The Competition Council stated that by offering to invest into a stable merger and development of businesses and, thus, obtain significant income, the defendant created an impression for consumers that the services advertised and offered were legal, i.e. that the defendant was officially authorised to provide such services.
It was established that the defendant did not posses the approval to provide investment services. Therefore, the Council held, defendant’s advertisements falsely stated that the service could legally be sold, contrary to what is set forth in item 9 of Annex 1 UCP Directive.
|URL Decision||Decision full text|
A number of the defendant’s advertising statements were concluded to be an unfair commercial practice and a misleading advertising. A fine of LTL 26,400 (approx. EUR 7,543) was imposed on the defendant.
|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.|