European Commission

 

Case detail

B a c k

Directive article Article 2 (b)
Article 2 (d)
Article 2 (e)
Article 2 (k)
Article 5 1.
Article 5 4. (a)
Article 6 1.
National ID Consumer Rights Protection Centre Decision No. E03-PTU-K47-30
Country Latvia Decision date 14/06/2012
Common name Decision type Administrative decision, first degree
Court Patērētāju Tiesību Aizsardzības Centrs (Rīga) Plaintiff(s) SIA “AEROC”
Court translation Consumer Rights Protection Centre (Riga) Defendant(s) Consumer Rights Protection Centre
Subject misleading advertising
Keywords poor qualitycomparative advertisinginformed decisionmisleading commercial practicesprice comparison

+ Expand all

Headnote

Using an advertisement, which contains a claim that a product is the “best” and the “cheapest” without actually comparing the relevant product to those of the relevant competitors, constitutes a misleading commercial practice.

Facts

The plaintiff is an undertaking which advertised its products via radio broadcasts. The advertisements contained information claiming that the wall block “AEROC Universal” is “the cheapest” and “the best” wall block.

CRPC accused the plaintiff of misleading commercial practice. The plaintiff argued that such a statement was meant to compare the wall block to other wall blocks produced by the plaintiff itself, and not to compare the wall block to wall blocks of its competitors.
 

Legal issue

Does using an advertisement, which contains a claim that a product is the “best” and the “cheapest” without actually comparing the relevant product to those of the relevant competitors, constitute a misleading commercial practice?

Decision

The court held that by using expressions, which state that the product is “the best” and “the cheapest”, the plaintiff had engaged in misleading commercial practices.

It was concluded by the court that the relevant advertisement can be considered as comparative advertising from the viewpoint of an average consumer as he/she may assume that the comparison is used to compare the products of the plaintiff with those of its competitors. As such, it follows that the plaintiff provided false information to consumers, which might lead a consumer to purchasing the product based on the misleading information.
 

  URL Decision Decision full text
EN N/A

Result

The plaintiff was penalized for commencing a misleading commercial practice.

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.