Annex I al1 20.
|Common name||Decision type||Supreme court decision|
|Court||Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Vilnius)||Plaintiff(s)||UAB "Mikrovisatos TV"|
|Court translation||Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania (Vilnius)||Defendant(s)||Competition Council|
|Keywords||black list, free, misleading advertising, misleading commercial practices|
Open all Close all
In the context of advertising free digital TV, the cost of purchasing a digital TV set-up box or the fee for activating an additional TV card cannot be considered "unavoidable costs of responding to commercial practice and collecting or paying for delivery of the service" (as described by Annex I-20 of the UCP Directive). Advertising free digital TV in such circumstances is a misleading commercial practice that breaches Annex I-20 of the UCP Directive.
Is Annex I-20 of the UCP Directive breached when "free digital TV" is advertised, while the customer would still have to pay for either a digital TV setup box or the activation of an additional TV card? ?
The court first stated that a commercial practice will be considered unfair in all circumstances if the consumer has to pay anything other than the unavoidable cost of responding to the commercial practice and collecting or paying for delivery of the item, because otherwise the trader may create a false impression about itself or its products.
The court further noted that it cannot agree with the argument of the plaintiff that the cost of purchasing a digital TV set-top box or the fee for activating an additional TV card can be considered unavoidable costs.
According to the court, the advertisement in question provided a consumer with information that when he/she has an additional TV, would be able to see digital TV channels without incurring any costs. However, the factual circumstances proved that actual additional costs did apply. Thus, the advertisement was considered false and was able to mislead a consumer.
|URL Decision||Decision full text|
The plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed. The decisions of the defendant and the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court remained unchanged.
|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.|