European Commission


Case detail

Directive article Article 5 4.
Article 7 2.
National ID 7761/2011, VII d.
Country Bulgaria Decision date 11/01/2012
Common name Decision type Supreme court decision
Court Върховен административен съд (София) Plaintiff(s) Bulgarian Telecommunication Company AD
Court translation Supreme Administrative Court (Sofia) Defendant(s) Consumer Protection Commission
Subject misleading omissions
Keywords information requirementsmaterial informationproduct characteristics

+ Expand all


A trader’s failure to provide information regarding key features of its products at its points of sale, qualifies as a misleading omission even if this information is available through other sources, such as the trader’s website.


The plaintiff offered prepaid cards. In its advertisements, it claimed that every recharge of a prepaid card entitled consumers to a bonus. However, neither the advertisement nor the packaging of the prepaid card mentioned that the bonus expired thirty days after the prepaid card was recharged. This information was only made available on the plaintiff’s website and not in the shops where the prepaid cards were offered for sale.
The defendant held that this manner of advertising was misleading because essential product information was withheld from consumers which were, in this way, misled while taking a transactional decision.

Legal issue

Does a trader’s failure to provide information regarding key features of its products at its points of sale, qualify as a misleading omission, even if the information is available through other sources such as its website?  


The court held that the failure to inform consumers on key characteristics of the product, such as the expiration date of the bonuses, deprived consumers of the opportunity to familiarize themselves with all relevant conditions of the purchase so as to be able to make an informed decision. According to the court such commercial behavior constitutes a misleading omission. 

  URL Decision Decision full text


The court upheld the defendant’s ruling that the plaintiff breached the consumer protection rules.

Additional information

Date Description URL
There is no events for this case.

Related case(s)

National ID Common Name Subject Country Link type
There is no related cases for this case.

Legal Literature

Title Author
There is no Legal Literature for this case.