Article 2 (d)
Annex I al1 1.
Annex I al1 4.
|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 “Teisingumas”|
|Keywords||black list, economic behaviour, endorsement, material distortion, misleading advertising, misleading commercial practices, regulated profession|
+ Expand all
Advertising services for which a license is required, whereas in reality the trader is not authorised under applicable law to provide such services, constitutes a false claim that a trader has been approved/authorised.
In the course of providing legal services, the defendant advertised its services offered using wording such as “Justice – attorney (…) services “.
The defendant was not authorised to provide attorney services under applicable law.
Does the advertising of services for which a license is required, whereas in reality the trader is not authorised under applicable laws to provide such services, constitute a false claim that a trader has been approved/authorised?
The Council referred to the prohibition to falsely claim that a trader (including his commercial practices) has been licensed (authorised).
The Council drew attention to the fact that the defendant was not authorized under applicable law to provide attorney services, neither did he have any agreements with law firms, authorised to provide the services involved.
|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 2,800 (approx. EUR 800) 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.|