The court considered that the marketing method used by the defendant, by attaching advertising messages to front doors of consumers' houses, does not automatically require a prior and specific permission of the consumers. According to the court, this kind of advertising is relatively new but this cannot constitute on itself a reason to require such kind of consumer consent.
The court further considered that as a consequence, the marketing method concerned cannot be considered an aggressive commercial practice due to the fact that the defendant did not obtain a prior and specific permission from the consumers involved.
The court further also took into account that attaching the advertising messages does not cause any disturbing noise or any other forms of hinder nor does it damage the surface of the front doors or postal boxes. Moreover, the court also considered that the messages are removed by the defendant after a couple of days. As a result, the commercial practice concerned could not be considered aggressive.
Koko teksti: Koko teksti