Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive, Article 3, (a) Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive, Article 4 Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive, Article 4

A guild (association of glaziers) and members of the guild’s inner circle published articles in a motor magazine stating very clearly that it was not safe to have your car windows changed by a mobile car glass repairer. Instead, this should be done at a shop. The articles (one of them written by a journalist quoting the guild members) were written in biased language. One of the biggest mobile car glass repairers claimed that the articles made undocumented statements to the detriment of mobile businesses as the statements were aimed at questioning the quality and safety of mobile car glass repair.

Several articles are published in a motor magazine. The articles are either written by the manager of the guild, members in the inner circle of the guild or by a journalist quoting inner circle members of the guild. In the articles it is stated that mobile car glass repair is not safe. The statements are not documented and are later found to not be true.

Is a guild (association of glaziers) acting inside his/a business and trade and thus under the scope of the Danish Commercial Practices Act?

Is it misleading to state that mobile car glass repair is unsafe?

Is it comparative advertisement to compare mobile car glass repair with repair in a shop?

The court ruled that the guild was acting inside his business and trade or at least on behalf of other businesses and thus under the scope of the Danish Commercial Practices Act.

The court ruled that statements saying that mobile car glass repair is unsafe were untrue and thus misleading.

The court ruled that you can compare mobile repair with repair in a shop and therefore statements of the other must comply with the rules on comparative advertising.

The guild and the other authors and those quoted were banished from using several specific phrases.

Hele teksten: Hele teksten

Ingen resultater

Ingen resultater

The judgement is a very specific case where the evaluation of the statements is the primary factor. In this ruling, they found evidence that the information in the articles was untrue and therefore any sentences/statements referring to this were misleading.