Case detailB a c k
Article 2 (b)
Article 2 (d)
Article 5 1.
Annex I al1 9.
Annex I al1 14.
|National ID||Consumer Rights Protection Centre Decision No. E03-PTU-F108-34|
|Common name||Decision type||Administrative decision, first degree|
|Court||Patērētāju Tiesību Aizsardzības Centrs (Rīga)||Plaintiff(s)||MMM-2011|
|Court translation||Consumer Rights Protection Centre (Riga)||Defendant(s)||Consumer Rights Protection Centre|
|Keywords||advertisement, black list, financial services, illegal products, investments|
+ Expand all
Placing an advertisement that includes contact information of a trader and a link to a trader’s website which offers consumers the possibility to invest money and get involved in a pyramid scheme, constitutes a misleading commercial practice in all circumstances.
Plaintiff is a trader who promoted its services by placing a billboard advertisement.
The relevant advertisement promoted investment services offered by the plaintiff and, inter alia, contained the text: “20-75% income a month!”.
The advertisement was also inviting consumers to visit the trader’s website MMM-2011, which offers consumers to invest money and get involved in a pyramid scheme.
Does placing an advertisement that includes contact information of a trader and a link to a trader’s website which offers consumers the possibility to invest money and get involved in a pyramid scheme, constitute a misleading commercial practice in all circumstances?
CRPC found the inclusion of a link to the MMM-2011 website in the billboard advertisement to constitute an unfair commercial practice by the plaintiff.
CRPC considered that via the internet link provided, the plaintiff was promoting a pyramid scheme where a consumer gives consideration for the opportunity to receive compensation that is derived primarily from the introduction of other consumers into the scheme.
Even though the billboard advertisement did not itself contain said information, CRPC held that the text of the advertisement and inclusion of the link to the trader’s website still constitutes an unfair commercial practice in all circumstances (blacklisted practice, point 14 of the Annex I to the Directive).
CRPC also established that the plaintiff is an investment service provider that had not obtained a license from the responsible regulatory body. Thus the CRPC deduced that plaintiff had created the impression that it had a legal right to provide the services, whereas this was not so in reality.
|URL Decision||Decision full text|
The plaintiff was penalized by the CRPC.
|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.|