Case detailB a c k
Article 6 1. (d)
Article 6 2.
|National ID||Prescription of the Estonian Consumer Protection Board of 2 April 2013 No 6-25/12-03378-001|
|Common name||OÜ OX Eesti||Decision type||Administrative decision, first degree|
|Court translation||Estonian Consumer Protection Board||Defendant(s)||OÜ OX Eesti|
|Subject||deceiving commercial practice|
|Keywords||delivery, delivery charges, false information, misleading price, price information|
+ Expand all
Charging a postal fee per package in a multi-package which is delivered in one delivery, constitutes an unfair commercial practice.
Consumers had bought coupons from coupon portals to receive photo printing services from the defendant at a discounted price (the announcement mentioned a price reduction of 44%).
Consumers who bought several coupons had to pay the postal fee separately for the delivery of the photos printed for each coupon.
Although the consumers had to pay a separate postal fee for each order, the different orders were delivered in the same package. The actual postal fees for the defendant were not dependent on the size of the package.
Therefore, when delivering multiple orders in the same package, the defendant had to pay only one postal fee, while charging multiple postal fees from consumers.
Does charging a postal fee per package in a multi-package which is delivered in one delivery, constitute an unfair commercial practice?
According to the court, informing consumers that separate postal fees are payable for each separate order creates the impression that the products will be delivered in separate packages and that charging the additional postal fee is justified.
Charging consumers with certain service fees without providing the respective services in return (i.e. separate deliveries for which a postal fee is paid), so the court held, amounts to providing misleading information about the essential characteristics of the service.
In addition, the court held that charging the additional postal fees, deceives consumers about the scope of the actual discount enjoyed, as the discount is in reality not as it was advertised (namely 44%) for the consumers who placed multiple orders.
Based on the foregoing, the court held that the defendant had indulged in unfair and prohibited commercial practices to the detriment of consumers’ interests.
|URL Decision||Decision full text|
The court issued a precept to the defendant ordering it to cease the unfair commercial practice and to refrain from such practices in the future.
|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.|