(1) According to the court, not mentioning the information on the additional cost of 10 EUR when the consumer parks his car himself and retains the key, misleads the consumer on the price of the offer and the conditions under which the offer can be obtained. The price payable by the consumer when he makes use of the option "park yourself" is 10 EUR higher than the price which was advertised. As a result, so the court stated, this practice amounts to a misleading practice in the sense of the Belgian Market Practices Act.
(2) In relation to the editorial content on second defendant's website, the court also agreed with the arguments of the plaintiff, by stating that the second defendant's argument that the entire website should not be considered as an advertisement as it only "offers the possibility" to place an advertisement, could not be followed as it was clear that second defendant allowed the first defendant to advertise its services on the second defendant's website and that the website itself already stated that the website was not entirely independent.
The court also considered that this was all the more so, as the website nowhere made a distinction between the alleged objective comparisons on the one hand, and the advertorial content on the other hand, as a result of which the objective nature could not be guaranteed.
Integrale tekst: Integrale tekst