The present case relates to online sales of software provided by the defendant, an English company based in Germany. Following several complaints reported by consumers and their associations on 12 July 2010, the Italian Competition Authority decided to start an investigation.
According to the complaints of various consumers, the trader carried out an unfair commercial practice due to the following circumstances:
(i) The defendant did not inform consumers that some of its software was not a freeware (i.e. was not offered for free). In particular, the defendant created a false impression that the software sold on its webpage was offered for free. In fact, after searching (through a web search engine) for the name of the software together with the term "free", several consumers were directed to the website of the defendant. After accessing the given link, consumers were not directed to defendant's home page, but to another page with a registration form that requested to insert personal data. On the side of this form, the terms and conditions of the contract were displayed in a small formatting. The above mentioned registration led consumers to sign a subscription for an online software supply and to pay a monthly fee in advance for the first year by a bank transfer.
(ii) Later, the defendant sent e-mails stating that the software was offered for free only for a trial period of two weeks within which the consumer could exercise the right of withdrawal. These emails were followed by two other e-mails requesting a payment, in absence of which legal proceedings could be initiated.
Conversely, the defendant claimed that the information provided on its website and in the registration form (containing the summary of the terms and conditions) was linear and clear for an average consumer. According to the defendant, the use of a page different from the "home page" of its website was a common marketing practice in e-commerce, aimed to allow consumers to easily access desired products. The defendant also presented the large number of attempts of fraud, set up by consumers through the insertion of false data. According to the defendant, all these circumstances showed that consumers were aware of the obligation to pay for its service.
Regarding the requests for payment, the defendant claimed that the threat of bringing a legal action represented the legitimate exercise of a right of the creditor (the defendant).