European Commission

 

Case detail

B a c k

Directive article 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
Country Latvia Decision date 23/10/2012
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 Regulationcoercionprofessional diligenceunwanted solicitations

+ Expand all

Headnote

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.

Facts

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”.
 

Legal issue

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?

Decision

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
EN N/A
LV http://www.ptac.gov.lv/upload/ptac_lemumi/2012/lieta_air_baltic_keksi_lemums_izraksts_23_10_12_2_.pdf

Result

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.
 

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.