Case detailB a c k
Article 2 (b)
Article 2 (c)
Article 2 (d)
Article 5 1.
Article 5 4. (a)
Annex I al1 11.
|National ID||Consumer Rights Protection Centre Decision No. E03-PTU-F271-41|
|Common name||Decision type||Administrative decision, first degree|
|Court||Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības centrs (Rīga)||Plaintiff(s)||SIA „PIKAL UN PARTNERI”|
|Court translation||Consumer Rights Protection Centre (Riga)||Defendant(s)||Consumer Rights Protection Centre|
|Keywords||advertisement, financial services, misleading advertising, sponsorship|
+ Expand all
It is a misleading commercial practice to make a statement that a broadcasted program does not promote services of a trader in circumstances where the content of the program evidently contains an advertisement.
Plaintiff is an undertaking which recorded and broadcasted, on its radio station, a program where a participant of the "MMM-2011" pyramid scheme was being interviewed.
This radio program included the following information: 1) an announcement that the relevant broadcast was not to be considered an advertisement; 2) the explanations of the founder of the "MMM-2011" pyramid scheme about the company and an invitation for consumers to take part in the scheme; 3) the explanations regarding the restructuring of "MMM-2011" into "MMM-2012" 4) the address of the location where the "MMM-2011" services were provided.
Does a statement that a broadcasted program does not promote services of a trader, whereas the circumstances are such that the content of the program evidently contains an advertisement, constitute misleading commercial practice?
The court established that the plaintiff had committed a misleading commercial practice.
The court found that the objective of inviting consumers to participate in the pyramid scheme and telling the address of the trader of the "MMM-2011" scheme, was to promote the services of the trader.
Thus, the relevant radio program was considered to be an advertisement. By making a statement that the broadcast is not an advertisement, the plaintiff was creating an impression that the relevant broadcast was only an informative announcement, whereas in reality it was a commercial communication.
Since the advertisement was executed in the form of a radio broadcast, the plaintiff was obliged to provide clear and unambiguous information to consumers of the inclusion of advertising.
The court also held that it was also a duty of the plaintiff to inform consumers that MMM-2011 had paid the plaintiff to promote its services.
|URL Decision||Decision full text|
The plaintiff was penalized for indulging in unfair commercial practices.
|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.|