European Commission

 

Case detail



Directive article Article 6 1. (c)
Article 6 1. (d)
National ID Rotterdam District Court 23 May 2013, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2013:CA0879
Country The Netherlands Decision date 23/05/2013
Common name Rotterdam District Court 23 May 2013, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2013:CA0879 Decision type Court decision, first degree
Court Rechtbank Rotterdam Plaintiff(s) Goltex Vertriebs GmbH & Co KG
Court translation Rotterdam District Court Defendant(s) Autoriteit Consument en Markt
Subject prizes
Keywords material informationmisleading omissionsmisleading statementsmisrepresentationproduct characteristicstravel

+ Expand all

Headnote

(1) Not mentioning how to become a club member and the conditions involved, constitutes an unfair commercial practice.(2) Creating the impression that consumers can become a club member and will receive a gift after, whilst there are certain conditions attached to receiving a gift, constitutes an unfair commercial practice.(3) Providing consumers with folders in which it is stated that they won a prize if they would participate in the day journey, constitutes an unfair commercial practice if it turns out that the prize mentioned was not received in the end.<br /> &nbsp;

Facts

The plaintiff organized day journeys for consumers. During these journeys sales demonstrations took place. An invitation to participate in the day journeys and the sales demonstrations was sent to consumers. The invitation contained unclear information as to the price of products, how to become a club member, the motive of the commercial practice, etc. The Dutch Consumer Authority (the defendant) became aware of complaints about these sale demonstrations and decided to conduct an inquiry into the plaintiff&#39;s compliance with rules regarding unfair commercial practices. It turned out that:1) the plaintiff provided consumers with misleading or incorrect information regarding the price of the product, which caused or could cause consumers to take a transactional decision that they would not have taken otherwise;<br /> 2) the impression was created that consumers could become a club member and subsequently would receive a gift from the plaintiff. However there were certain conditions attached to receiving a gift and it was unclear how to become a club member;<br /> 3) the false impression was created that the consumer had won a prize.The defendant held the opinion that the plaintiff violated the rules on UCP and imposed a fine. The plaintiff started legal proceedings arguing that there was no violation involved.<br /> &nbsp;

Legal issue

(1) Does not mentioning how to become a club member and the conditions involved, constitute an unfair commercial practice?(2) Does creating the impression that consumers can become a club member and will receive a gift after, whilst there are certain conditions attached to receiving a gift, constitute an unfair commercial practice?(3) Does providing consumers with folders in which it is stated that they won a prize if they would participate in the day journey, constitute an unfair commercial practice if it turns out that the prize mentioned was not received in the end?<br /> &nbsp;

Decision

The court established that only when buying products of a certain price, consumers were able to become a club member. The conditions involved were only made available during the day journey itself. This lack of information, so the court held, constitutes an unfair commercial practice.Furthermore, the court ruled that by creating the impression that a gift will be received when becoming a club member, but by not providing information how to become a club member and under what conditions, the plaintiff violated the UCP-rules.Finally, the court considered that in the invitation to participate in the day journeys, the impression was created that the consumer had won a unique prize, whereas in reality participants all &quot;won&quot; the same (less interesting) prize. According to the court, creating such impression was considered unfair.<br /> &nbsp;

  URL Decision Decision full text
EN N/A
NL http://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:RBROT:2013:CA0879&keyword=ECLI%3aNL%3aRBROT%3a2013%3aCA0879

Result

The plaintiff&#39;s request was partly granted (only part of the reasoning of defendant regarding the misleading nature of the price was considered inadequate).

Additional information

Date Description URL
There is no events for this case.

Related case(s)

National ID Common Name Subject Country Link type
There is no related cases for this case.

Legal Literature

Title Author
There is no Legal Literature for this case.