1. A trader providing call centre services promoting products of third parties has to provide information related to the consumer’s right to withdrawal in a clear and understandable way and in a manner that is appropriate for the communication channel used by the trader according to the Distance and Off-Premises Contracts Act (2005:59). This information should include: how to estimate the period in which the consumer may exercise the right of withdrawal, when it starts and when it ends, as well as if there is a standard form for exercising this right and where to find it. Such information has to be provided before the conclusion of a contract in a communication channel, for example by telephone, as well as within a reasonable time after the conclusion of the contract in a readable and durable medium if it has not already been provided this way. In the case of telephone sales, it does not suffice to have the information on the right to withdrawal in the general terms and conditions on the trader’s website. Similarly, the telephone seller must also provide information regarding their name, reason for calling, the trader’s identity, and the seller’s relation to the trader according to the Distance and Off-Premises Contracts Act (2005:59).
Relevance: The information obligations related to the right of withdrawal were defined by the Court of First Instance, but the Court of Appeal did not discuss this matter since the appeal did not refer to it. Since it is a final judgement there is no possibility for appeal to the Supreme Court.
2. Information provided by the trader which gives the impression that the consumer is offered a discount on their existing telephone subscription, while in reality, the trader was concluding a new subscription contract with another operator, is not clear and adequate and consequently misleads consumers. Such a practice where the trader asks for a payment for a service which the consumer did not order because they did not get clear and adequate information, is to be regarded as one of p. 29 of Annex I of the Directive.
Relevance: This is a final judgement without possibility for appeal to the Supreme Court. Following the decision in Svea Court of Appeal, Patent and Market Court of Appeal, Judgement PMT 10059-18, it establishes the interpretation of p. 29 of the Annex I