European Commission


Case detail

Directive article Article 7 1.
Article 7 4. (a)
National ID 40/2012. VJ
Country Hungary Decision date 15/05/2013
Common name Decision type Administrative decision, first degree
Court Gazdasági Versenyhivatal (Budapest) Plaintiff(s) Hungarian Competition Authority
Court translation Competition Authority (Budapest) Defendant(s) Provident Pénzügyi Zrt.
Subject misleading advertising
Keywords conditional promotionsfinancial servicesmaterial informationmisleading omissions

+ Expand all


Constitutes an unfair commercial practice, not mentioning material conditions related to an advertised commercial promotion.


Between 10 March 2010 and 30 April 2012, the defendant promoted its money payback facility in its 13 different offers.

In the offers, the defendant promised to pay back those clients who paid their weekly loan installments on time, the value of one or two week's installments or another amount at the end of the loan contract.

However, the defendant failed to disclose that those customers using the option of full or partial prepayment were disqualified from the offer.

Moreover, the Competition Authority established that consumers were not aware of the fact that the defendant considers every extra payment (regardless of the client's intention) as a prepayment. While this usually involves discounted interest rates and is without extra charge, consumers were not informed of this through any form of advertising. Consequently, the communications under investigation had to be considered as resulting in the deception of consumers.

Legal issue

Does it constitute an unfair commercial practice not to mention material conditions related to an advertised commercial promotion?


The Competition Authority established that the defendant was engaged in an unfair trading practice as in its campaign promoting money payback it did not inform consumers about important conditions that were attached to participation in the offer.

When determining the amount of the fine, the Competition Authority considered as a significant aggravating circumstance the fact that for more than two (although not entirely continuous) years - in its 13 investigated campaigns - the defendant implemented a commercial practice using various communication tools.

  URL Decision Decision full text


The Competition Authority imposed a fine of HUF 50,000,000 (approx. EUR 167,000) on the defendant.

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.