In assessing the unfair character of the practice, the court pointed out that the average consumer may assume that when buying a "Ptasie Mleczko" product, the consumer can participate in the lottery. The possibility of obtaining additional benefits, i.e. the possibility of winning a lottery, may affect the consumer's decision to buy the product. However, only after opening the promotional package, the consumer was informed that the deadline to participate in the promotion could have already been passed.
The court emphasized that it is the advertising message the trader sent to consumers that is very important in this case. On the promotional packages of "Ptasie Mleczko", the defendant presented information on the lottery and the related prizes. Thus, consumers buying the products, could reasonably expect to participate in the lottery and possibly win a prize. The lottery was conducted to attract consumers' attention, arouse interest and consequently convince them to buy "Ptasie Mleczko". Moreover, the court noted that the defendant conducted a very broad information campaign.
In summary, according to the court, the average consumer buying "Ptasie Mleczko" products, has a valid right to expect that he/she can take part in the lottery, hence has a chance to win attractive prizes. As a result, the court ruled that therefore, the lack of information about the duration of the promotion, misleads consumers.