European Commission

 

Case detail

B a c k

Directive article Article 2 (e)
Article 5 1.
Article 6 1.
National ID Consumer Rights Protection Centre Decision No. 21-06/552-K-161
Country Latvia Decision date 22/01/2013
Common name Decision type Administrative decision, first degree
Court Patērētāju Tiesību Aizsardzības Centrs (Rīga) Plaintiff(s) SIA “Baltcom”
Court translation Consumer Rights Protection Centre (Riga) Defendant(s) Consumer Rights Protection Centre
Subject comparative advertising
Keywords misleading omissionsprice information

+ Expand all

Headnote

A comparative advertisement, in which a trader does not include all the necessary and relevant information about a compared service provided by its competitor, constitutes a misleading commercial practice.

Facts

Via television, internet and magazines, the plaintiff distributed an advertisement comparing the price of its service and the price of a similar service provided by two of its competitors (a digital TV and internet package).

The plaintiff did not include in the comparative advertisement relevant information about additional bonuses offered by one of the competitors with whom the plaintiff compared its products.

As a result, the CRPC accused the plaintiff of misleading commercial practice.
 

Legal issue

Does a comparative advertisement, in which a trader does not include all the necessary and relevant information about a service provided by a competitor, constitute a misleading commercial practice?

Decision

The court found an advertisement distributed by the plaintiff to contain misleading information, as the service package offered by the plaintiff was not comparable to the service package offered by its competitor.

This was due to the fact that the competitor had included additional bonuses in its service package and such bonuses were not offered by the plaintiff.

Consequently, the court concluded that such actions of the plaintiff amount to misleading commercial practices.
 

  URL Decision Decision full text
EN N/A
LV http://www.ptac.gov.lv/upload/baltcomtv_lemuma_par_lietas_izbeigsanu_izraksts.pdf

Result

The court did not find it necessary to penalize the plaintiff.

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.