Case detailB a c k
Article 7 1.
Article 7 2.
Article 8 al1
|Common name||A822-1370/2013||Decision type||Court decision in appeal|
|Court||Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas||Plaintiff(s)||UAB Ekologiski vandenys|
|Court translation||Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania||Defendant(s)||State Consumer Rights Protection Authority|
|Keywords||aggressive commercial practices, financial services, material information, misleading omissions, misleading price, omission, transactional decision, unwanted solicitations|
+ Expand all
(1) Not providing the consumer with clear information on the total price of a product constitutes a misleading commercial practice.
(2) Actively persuading consumers into entering into an agreement with the trader can constitute an aggressive commercial practice.
The plaintiff, who offers credits to consumers, visited potential consumers and actively tried to convince consumers to conclude agreements. It was established that in those credit loan agreements, the total price was not indicated in a clear and unambiguous manner.
It was established that there was insufficient material information regarding the consumer credit.
Consequently, the defendant imposed a fine on the plaintiff.
The plaintiff appealed to this decision and filed a request to the court to reduce the fine.
The first court identified a breach of Article 6 (1) of the Lithuanian Law on Prohibition of Unfair Business-to-Consumer Commercial Practices which relates to misleading omissions. Thus, the first court decided to reject the complaint. The plaintiff again appealed to this decision of the first court.
(1) Does not providing the consumer with clear information on the total price of a product, constitute a misleading commercial practice?
(2) Can actively persuading consumers into entering into an agreement with the trader constitute an aggressive commercial practice?
The court decided that the plaintiff breached his obligation to provide the consumers with material and unambiguous information about the product offered.
The court approved the first court's argument that the plaintiff’s actions caused the average consumer to take a transactional decision that he would not have taken otherwise if he were informed in an appropriate way.
The court reminded that the total price of the product was unclear.
As a result, so the court held, the plaintiff infringed the rules prohibiting misleading omissions.
In addition, the court considered the actions of the plaintiff consisting of visiting consumers and trying to persuade them to enter into an agreement, as constituting aggressive and unfair in respect of consumers.
|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.|