Case detailB a c k
Article 2 (e)
Article 5 1.
Article 6 1.
|National ID||Consumer Rights Protection Centre Decision No. 21-06/552-K-161|
|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|
|Keywords||misleading omissions, price information|
+ Expand all
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.
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.
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?
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|
The court did not find it necessary to penalize the plaintiff.
|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.|