CRPC held that the plaintiff had acted in a misleading way. Although the advertisement claimed “0 LVL tariffs for calls, connections, internet and sms", it was established by the CRPC that the conditions under which this offer could be obtained were only indicated in a considerably smaller print. Such terms included the limitation in time of the offer and the fact that the tariff only applied within plaintiff’s network and, finally, that subscription fees were payable to obtain the offer.
CRPC thus ruled that the necessary material information was not provided in a clear and legible manner and that the average consumer may be misled into thinking that nothing was to be paid at all to obtain the applicable tariffs.
The dominant message of the advertising was “0” tariffs, which was therefore misleading since the conditions were not displayed in the same manner. It is misleading practice in any circumstances where the trader claims that the product is free of charge or similar, where in fact it is not so.
URL: http://www.ptac.gov.lv/upload/ptac_lemumi/2011/tele2_nulles_lem.pdf
Pilns teksts: Pilns teksts