Article 2 (d)
Annex I al1 1.
Annex I al1 19.
|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 “Druskininkų Rasa“|
|Keywords||average consumer, black list, competition, economic behaviour, false impression, misleading advertising, misleading commercial practices|
+ Expand all
A promotional offer to win a prize, where in reality essential elements of the prize are not provided when awarded the prize, constitutes a competition or prize promotion without awarding the prizes described or a reasonable equivalent (item 19 of the UCP black list).
The defendant launched an advertising campaign stating “Buy any sort of RASA drinks and win a dream motorboat”.
The Competition Council received a consumer’s complaint claiming that he won the main prize.
According to the complaint, the motorboat won was in fact without engine, while the promotional materials depicted a picture of a motorboat with engine and running on water.
Conversely, the defendant held that a motorboat without an engine was advertised in its promotion.
Does a promotional offer to win a prize, where in reality essential elements of the prize are not provided when awarded the prize, constitute a competition or prize promotion without awarding the prizes described or a reasonable equivalent (item 19 of the UCP black list)?
The Council recalled that in order to determine a violation on unfair commercial practices, it is sufficient that the practice falls within the blacklisted practices.
However, in view of the defendant's claim that a motorboat without an engine was promoted, the Competition Council additionally investigated compliance with misleading advertising regulation which had been in place before introduction of the unfair commercial practices regulation.
The Council stated that the picture of a motorboat used in the promotional materials, suggested to an average consumer that the prize would have an engine. It was noted that consumers would not likely participate in the campaign if they were aware of the fact that in order to use the advertised prize they would have to incur significant costs themselves.
The Council thus concluded, that the defendant committed a blacklisted misleading commercial practice.
|URL Decision||Decision full text|
The defendant’s advertising campaign was concluded to be an unfair commercial practice and a misleading advertisement. As it did not harm significantly the values protected by the laws, an official warning 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.|