Case detailB a c k
Article 2 (b)
Article 2 (d)
Article 2 (e)
Article 2 (h)
Article 2 (k)
Article 3 1.
Article 5 1.
Article 5 2.
Article 6 1.
Article 7 1.
Article 7 2.
Article 7 4.
Article 13 al1
Annex I al1 9.
|National ID||Consumer Rights Protection Centre Decision Nr.E03-KREUD-52|
|Common name||Decision type||Administrative decision, first degree|
|Court||Pateretaju Tiesibu Aizsardzibas Centrs (Riga)||Plaintiff(s)|
|Court translation||Consumer Rights Protection Centre (Riga)||Defendant(s)|
|Subject||decision to purchase|
|Keywords||advertisement, decision to purchase, games of chance, identity of the trader, internet, misleading commercial practices, misleading omissions, mobile phone services|
+ Expand all
Because the participation in online games or lotteries is not a common way for entering into a consumer contract, using such games or lotteries to lure the consumer into a subscription for mobile content services constitutes an unfair commercial practice, unless complete and accurate information would be provided.
The trader had placed an online advertisement in the form of a lottery/contest. The consumer was asked to respond to a few simple questions in order to enter the draw to win a certain prize. After responding to these questions, the consumer was asked to fill in his name and to provide his mobile telephone number. An SMS message was then sent, which informed the consumer he had subscribed to paid mobile content services and that certain charges would be added weekly to its mobile telephone bill/prepaid card.
The trader admitted that its practice might have been misleading.
Is it unfair to induce a consumer into a mobile subscription service through his participation in an online lottery, game or similar activity?
The Consumer Rights Protection Centre found that such practice was not compliant with the UCP Directive, after considering the form of presentation of the lottery, the way how the scheme was set up, the fact that the organiser of the lottery was a different person than the mobile content service provider, and the presentation of the lottery and service webpage.
The Consumer Rights Protection Centre found that consumers were misled, because the service provider and the lottery organizer were not clearly identified, and the setup and presentation of the websites did not allow an average consumer to conclude that participation in the lottery/questionnaire would lead to subscription of the mobile content service.
According to the Consumer Rights Protection Centre, consumers treat the purchasing decision seriously. For this reason, participation in online games is not a common way of entering into a consumer contract.
|URL Decision||Decision full text|
The trader was penalized for having committed an unfair 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.|