Article 8 al1
Article 9 al1
|Common name||Decision type||Court decision, first degree|
|Court||Markkinaoikeus (Helsinki)||Plaintiff(s)||The Consumer Ombudsman|
|Court translation||The Market Court (Helsinki)||Defendant(s)||LB Marketing and Holdings Oy|
|Subject||aggressive commercial practices|
|Keywords||advertisement, consumer rights, consumer's home, immovable property, undue influence, unordered product, unwanted solicitations|
+ Expand all
Advertising products by attaching an advertising message to a consumer's front door, without having obtained the consumer's prior consent and it being understood that the removal of such message does not damage the front door, does not constitute an aggressive commercial practice.
The defendant used an advertising method by which it attached advertising messages to consumers' front doors or postal boxes. These messages were colourful (hence highly visible) and quite large of size. However, the messages were easily removable without damaging the surface of the door or the postal box.
Nonetheless, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant's marketing method constituted an infringement of the prohibition on aggressive commercial practice, as consumers' consent was not obtained in advance and as the advertising practice took place at the consumers’ premises which meant a substantial interference of the consumers' privacy, according to the plaintiff.
Does advertising products by attaching an advertising message to a consumer's front door, without having obtained the consumer's prior consent and it being understood that the removal of such message does not damage the front door, constitute an aggressive commercial practice?
The court considered that the marketing method used by the defendant, by attaching advertising messages to front doors of consumers' houses, does not automatically require a prior and specific permission of the consumers. According to the court, this kind of advertising is relatively new but this cannot constitute on itself a reason to require such kind of consumer consent.
The court further considered that as a consequence, the marketing method concerned cannot be considered an aggressive commercial practice due to the fact that the defendant did not obtain a prior and specific permission from the consumers involved.
The court further also took into account that attaching the advertising messages does not cause any disturbing noise or any other forms of hinder nor does it damage the surface of the front doors or postal boxes. Moreover, the court also considered that the messages are removed by the defendant after a couple of days. As a result, the commercial practice concerned could not be considered aggressive.
|URL Decision||Decision full text|
The plaintiff’s request was dismissed.
|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.|