Case detailB a c k
Article 5 2. (b)
Article 6 1. (d)
|Common name||A442-90/2013||Decision type||Court decision in appeal|
|Court||Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas||Plaintiff(s)||UAB „Armitana“|
|Court translation||Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania||Defendant(s)||State Consumer Rights Protection Authority|
|Keywords||discounts, information obligation, material information, misleading omissions, seasonal sales|
+ Expand all
Omitting to clearly indicate which products are subject to an advertised discount, constitutes an unfair commercial practice.
The plaintiff, a shoe selling company, distributed leaflets across the Internet advertising a 40% discount applicable in the web shops operated by the plaintiff, and this on the autumn/winter collection of shoes.
After conducting a research, the defendant had established that it was not possible to clearly determine whether or not the product of the plaintiff pertained to the autumn/winter collection, hence would benefit from the discount advertised.
The defendant fined the plaintiff for unfair commercial practice, and the plaintiff appealed to this decision.
Does omitting to clearly indicate which products are subject to an advertised discount, constitute an unfair commercial practice?
The court stated that the plaintiff, failing to provide clear and unambiguous information on the products which benefited from the advertised discount, created the impression for consumers that all of plaintiff's products (except those explicitly belonging to the "new collection") would be subject to that discount.
According to the court, the first instance court has correctly established that the circumstances of the case prove that the activity of the plaintiff does not adhere to the requirements of professional diligence and that it materially distorts or can materially distort an average consumer’s economic behavioUr in respect of the offered products.
According to the court, this allows to reasonably state that the plaintiff has committed an unfair commercial practice.
|URL Decision||Decision full text|
The plaintiff’s request was denied.
|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.|