Case law

  • Case Details
    • National ID: Decision 262/29.03.2011
    • Member State: Romania
    • Common Name:link
    • Decision type: Administrative decision, first degree
    • Decision date: 29/03/2011
    • Court: National Audiovisual Council of Romania (Bucharest)
    • Subject:
    • Plaintiff: Romanian Advertising Council
    • Defendant: several TV stations
    • Keywords: advertisement, inaccurate information, misleading commercial practices
  • Directive Articles
    Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Section 1, Article 6, 1., (b)
  • Headnote
    A general statement on product characteristics is misleading in the event such characteristics cannot be proven.
  • Facts
    Several television stations broadcasted a television commercial for a product named "Kober Zertifikat Plus", a washable paint.

    The commercial began with displaying a test room and a voice claiming that "a simple test shows how the product is able to eliminate 99,99% of the existing housing bacteria during the first 24 hours after it is applied".

    The advertisement ended with a text alleging that the antibacterial effect was tested in German and Japanese labs.

    However, it was established that the antibacterial effect was tested only on 2 specific types of bacteria.
  • Legal issue
    The Council stated that the advertisement amounted to misleading advertising, due to the fact that the average consumer has access only to the information provided in the television commercial.

    As the information being provided was untruthful or incomplete, it was likely to deceive an average consumer causing him to take a transactional decision that he would not have taken otherwise, this based on the alleged characteristics of the product.
  • Decision

    Is a general statement on a product's characteristics misleading, in the event such characteristics cannot be proven?


    Full text: Full text

  • Related Cases

    No results available

  • Legal Literature

    No results available

  • Result
    The administrative body demanded the defendants to immediately comply with legal provisions regulating TV and advertising matters.