The court first considered that, from a well-informed and reasonable user’s point of view, the defendant’s offer contained false information, and could thus be deemed as a misleading commercial practice.
The court did not issue an explicit opinion regarding the question whether this behaviour infringed Annex I-20 of the UCP Directive, but only stated that even if this was not the case, the promotion would be misleading in the sense of §2 of the Austrian Unfair Competition Act (as described below).
The court further examined the interpretation of the terms "clear" and "comprehensible" as set out in Directive 97/7 (Distance Selling Directive), also in relation to the UCP Directive. The court interpreted these terms in compliance with Directive 97/7, and reasoned that the provision of information has to be performed in such a manner that the information can be recognised by a well-informed and reasonably observant consumer prior to the conclusion of the contract.
The court then concluded that a commercial practice that is deemed misleading and thus unfair, can in general not qualify as "clear" and "comprehensible" in the meaning of sec 5c para 2 of the Consumer Protection Act (implementing article 4 item 2 of the Directive 97/7/EC).