Teismų praktika

Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive, Article 3 Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive, Article 3 Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Article 5

A promotion from which the average consumer might assume that the prices of the goods in question have been reduced and that the discount only applied for a limited amount of time, even though the same promotion continued after the expiry of the time limit, is considered an unfair commercial practice and a misleading advertisement.

An Internet retailer UAB “PIgu” promoted offers lasting 1, 2, 4 or 5 days, during which they offered good promotions at the prices indicated in the advertisements. A few days after the expiry of the sale, and in some cases the next day, similar offers were re-launched. The promotional offers included the price of the goods, the word "promotion", a clock symbol, the number of days and hours left until the end of the promotion, in some cases, a percent symbol. For conducting such practices, the company was fined by the Lithuanian Competition Council, who recognised such commercial practices as unfair. UAB “Pigu”, disagreeing with the ruling of the Competition Council, appealed to the court. The First Instance Court dismissed the action.

Should a promotion from which the average consumer may have assumed that the prices of the goods in question have been reduced and that the discount applied only for a limited amount of time, even though the same promotion continued after the expiry of the time limit, be consider an unfair commercial practice and a misleading advertisement?

An average consumer, seeing that the goods in question were subject to a sale for a limited amount of time, could not expect a similar campaign to resume a day or several days after its expiry. The clock in the promotional offers and the countdown of the time remaining until the end of the promotion gave the impression that the submitted offers are unique and the consumer will no longer be able to use them after the expiration of the promotion. The advertising elements discussed may have given the average consumer the impression that the goods are being sold at a reduced price and the offer is limited. Since the advertising disseminated by the company may have influenced the average consumer's decision to conclude a transaction with the company, it is sufficient to conclude these are unfair commercial practices, and therefore misleading advertising in accordance with Article 5 (6) of the Law on Advertising.

URL: https://eteismai.lt/byla/142126431726284/eA-629-520/2020

Visas tekstas: Visas tekstas

Rezultatų nėra

Rezultatų nėra

The Court left the decision of the First Instance Court unchanged.