The court found that in order to attract more customers, the plaintiff had published an advertisement containing an offer that the plaintiff could not actually deliver.
(1) The court first considered that no (time or amount) limitations were indicated in the advertisement. Hence, the plaintiff could not rely on the limited amount of products already sold.
The court then considered that a statement that tours are offered "starting from" a certain price, does not imply that a consumer cannot request to conclude a contract at the lowest price specified in the advertisement. If the product is not available at the lowest price specified and a trader had not specified any limitations, the information in the advertisement should be considered as false and misleading.
(2) Secondly, the court considered that a trader that has been engaged in a certain area of business for a long time, cooperating with certain partners in business, has to be able to foresee that, due to different aspects of business, the trader would not be able to provide the product promoted in the advertisement. As a professional provider of travel services, the plaintiff could foresee -- and had to foresee -- that the offer promoted in the advertisement could possibly not be met.
(3) The court also noted that it is not required to establish negative consequences to find a commercial practice unfair, i.e., it is not required to investigate whether or not the consumer has purchased a product that exceeds the one specified in the advertisement.