Case detailB a c k
Article 2 (b)
Article 2 (d)
Article 2 (e)
Article 2 (h)
Article 2 (k)
Article 5 1.
Article 5 2. (b)
Article 5 4. (b)
Article 8 al1
Article 9 al1 (a)
Article 9 al1 (d)
|National ID||Consumer Rights Protection Centre Decision No. E03-PTU-K115-39|
|Common name||Decision type||Administrative decision, first degree|
|Court||Patērētāju Tiesību Aizsardzības Centrs (Rīga)||Plaintiff(s)||A/S „Air Baltic Corporation”|
|Court translation||Consumer Rights Protection Centre (Riga)||Defendant(s)||Consumer Rights Protection Centre|
|Subject||aggressive commercial practices|
|Keywords||Air Services Regulation, coercion, professional diligence, unwanted solicitations|
+ Expand all
Terms of a ticket booking system, which require consumers to carry out active actions (i.e. click on a refusal button) in order to decline additional services offered by a trader, constitute unfair (aggressive) commercial practice.
Plaintiff is an airline company that maintains a website where consumers can book tickets online.
Several steps must be taken during the booking. Between the third and the fourth step a window offering consumers to purchase additional services such as flight date/time change, seat reservation, etc. appears automatically.
In order to decline these additional services, a consumer has to click on the button “Do not want to purchase these services”.
Do terms of a ticket booking system, which require consumers to carry out active actions (i.e. click on a refusal button) in order to decline additional services offered by a trader, constitute unfair (aggressive) commercial practice?
The court held that the said terms constitute an aggressive commercial practice. The court considered that consumers might inadvertently forget to click on the button to decline the additional services and, thus, purchase unwanted services.
By requesting consumers to actively decline the automatic offer of additional services, plaintiff is coercing consumers to make a decision, which they otherwise may not have made.
The court also found that the plaintiff had acted contrary to the professional diligence requirement, bestowing unfair contractual terms upon consumers.
|URL Decision||Decision full text|
The plaintiff was legally obliged by the court to discontinue the unfair commercial practice. In order to do so, plaintiff was required to amend the website so that consumers can activate the option to choose additional services themselves.
The plaintiff was penalized for committing an unfair (aggressive) commercial practice.
|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.|