The defendant had marketed cross-country ski boots on its website from mid-August 2016 to early April 2017 with the crossed-out reference price of EUR 199, and from 1 February 2017 to 3 April 2017 with the crossed-out reference price of EUR 180, announced in direct connection with the selling price of EUR 159. The defendant had also marketed men's running shoes on its website, the sale price of which on 18 August 2016 was EUR 129, on 22 December 2016 EUR 119.96, and on 1 February 2017 EUR 129. The reference price of the product announced in the immediate connection with the sales price on the abovementioned dates was EUR 149.95. In addition, the percentages of discounts and other terms referring to discounts had been used in connection with the sales prices and reference prices of the products.
According to the Consumer Ombudsman, the defendant had not proved that it had ever charged consumers a price corresponding to the reference price for the products in question. In any event, the prices had been compared to some significantly higher prices charged in the past, which had lost their relevance as reference prices over time. Nor had the defendant shown that the reference prices used corresponded to the recommended retail prices used on the market or to those charged by competitors. According to the Consumer Ombudsman, the procedure had been misleading to consumers and, where it may have affected the average consumer's transactional decision, the procedure had infringed Chapter 2, Sections 11, 6 and 3 of the Consumer Protection Act and thus Chapter 2, Section 1 of the Consumer Protection Act. According to the defendant, it had acted in an acceptable manner generally used in the industry and had not sought to mislead anyone or to misrepresent its products or their prices.