Case detailB a c k
Article 6 1.
Annex I al1 1.
Annex I al1 20.
|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 “Roventa”|
|Keywords||black list, economic behaviour, material distortion, misleading advertising, misleading commercial practices|
+ Expand all
Advertising services as free for a certain period of time, period after which consumers have to pay a monthly subscription fee, may constitute a misleading commercial practice under certain circumstances.
The defendant advertised its cable TV services, uncluding wording such as “Free for 3 months”.
In order to benefit from said promotion, a consumer was compelled to sign a fixed-period service agreement with the defendant.
Depending on the length of the agreement, the consumer did not have to pay for the cable TV services for up to the first 3 months, while later on he had to pay a monthly subscription fee.
Does the advertising of services as free for a certain period of time, period after which consumers have to pay a monthly subscription fee, constitute a misleading commercial practice?
The Council noted that it is prohibited to describe a product as “gratis”, “free”, “without charge” or similar if a consumer has to pay anything other than the unavoidable cost of responding to the commercial practice and collecting or paying for delivery of the item.
According to the Council, the defendant’s advertisement “Free for 3 months” reasonably suggested that the consumer would be able to use free cable TV services for 3 months. However, the Council held, by way of signing the fixed-period service agreement, the consumer will be obliged to pay a monthly subscription fee when the 3 months period has passed.
The Council concluded that the consumer willing to benefit from the said promotion and watch cable TV for 3 months for free obviously had to incur additional costs which were not unavoidable because they were not related to, e.g., collecting or paying for delivery of the item.
|URL Decision||Decision full text|
A number of the defendant’s advertisements were concluded to be an unfair commercial practice and a misleading advertising. A fine of LTL 3,000 (approx. EUR 257) was imposed on the defendant.
|There is no events for this case.|
|National ID||Common Name||Subject||Country||Link type|
|A502-989/2010||free||Lithuania||Cases are similar because the underlying facts are similar|
|I-1621-189/2009||free||Lithuania||Cases are similar because the underlying facts are similar|
|There is no Legal Literature for this case.|