Annex I al2 28.
|Common name||SMS-Vertragsänderung||Decision type||Supreme court decision|
|Court||Oberster Gerichtshof (Wien)||Plaintiff(s)||Unknown|
|Court translation||Supreme Court (Vienna)||Defendant(s)||Unknown|
|Keywords||aggressive commercial practices, black list, unordered product|
+ Expand all
Opt-out offers per SMS by means of which an additional (paying) product/service is forced upon the customer, unless he explicitly objects, are assessed as aggressive commercial practice.
The defendant, a telecommunication provider for (telephone) services, had sent to several of its customers an SMS, by means of which a higher tariff was offered to the customer. The customer was given an option to answer negatively to the SMS, otherwise the tariff (including additional costs in the amount of EUR 2 per month) shall apply. The sending of such SMS had no basis in the individual contracts (general terms and conditions) with the customers.
The plaintiff requested the defendant to cease and desist to prompt the customers with SMS, offering additional services and providing those services (at an additional costs) in case the customer did not explicitly opt-out.
In first instance and in appeal, the courts had ruled that this practice constitutes an aggressive commercial practice, demanding payment from consumers for unsolicited services.
Are opt-out offers per SMS by means of which an additional (paying) product/service is forced upon the customer, unless he explicitly objects, assessed as aggressive commercial practices?
The Supreme Court assessed the case under the prohibition of Annex I No 29 of the UCP Directive, and considered the sending of SMS with offers to amend the contact a harassment of the customer, as well as a prohibited influencing of the customers, since such practice forces an amendment of the contract on the customer. This constitutes an aggressive commercial practice.
This is also the case if the defendant would include in its general terms and conditions a provision which allows unlimited amendment of the contract through fictitious consent (through lack of an objection), as this would also violate the Consumer Protection Act.
The Supreme Court affirmed the previous decisions of the first instance court and the court of appeal.
|URL Decision||Decision full text|
The offer to amend the contract per SMS with a fictitious consent and an opt-out possibility is assessed as an 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.|