The defendant, a telecom operator, organized a promotional campaign in which it announced a 50% discount on its telephone services. The promotion was advertised through panels on bus stops, the Internet and on the radio. In each of the advertisements, the defendant indicated that the 50% discount offer was subject to additional conditions, such as the obligation to conclude a two years contract. On the Internet, a link was clearly mentioned in which the additional conditions could be consulted. In the radio commercial, it was stated that the consumer could obtain more information at the points of sale or on the defendant's website. As to the commercial panels on the bus stops, below the main message of the 50% discount, in smaller print the consumer was urged to become a customer of the defendant before a certain date in order to enjoy the offer and on a third level, in very small, nearly illegible letters, the consumer was warned that additional conditions applied. According to the defendant, the advertisements therefore clearly informed the consumers on the fact that additional conditions applied. Conversely, according to the plaintiff, the consumer was not clearly informed on the applicable conditions, hence could easily be misled.