Case detailB a c k
Article 5 1.
Article 6 1.
|Common name||Decision type||Court decision in appeal|
|Court||Cour d''appel de Reims||Plaintiff(s)||SA Atol and others|
|Court translation||Court of Appeals Reims||Defendant(s)||SAS Hans Anders France|
|Keywords||black list, misleading omissions|
+ Expand all
Describing a product in an advertising as "free" on the condition that the consumer buys another product in order to benefit from the promotion does not constitute an unfair commercial practice, if the condition is clearly communicated to the consumer.
The defendant, who operates a network of opticians, advertised online and in stores that consumers could get one free frame if they bought one pair of glasses.
The plaintiff claimed that this advertising constitutes an unfair commercial practice, as it was alleged that it was not made sufficiently clear to the consumer that one pair of glasses needed to be bought to obtain the free frame.
In first instance, the tribunal denied the plaintiff's claim.
Does describing a product in an advertising as "free" on the condition that the consumer buys another product in order to benefit from the promotion constitute an unfair commercial practice, if the condition is clearly communicated to the consumer?
According to the court, the advertisement does not mislead consumers as it provides consumers with clear and complete information on the promotion operation and the average consumer may not be mistaken on the fact that to get the free frame, he/she must buy one pair of glasses.
Moreover, the defendant did not increase the price of glasses to compensate the discount. Therefore, this advertising does not constitute a misleading or unfair commercial practice.
|URL Decision||Decision full text|
The plaintiff's claim 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.|