(1) The court states that in relation to the advertising leaflet, the plaintiff had selectively only produced the last part of the commercial relating to the biodegradability, whereas in reality that statement should be read together with the rest of the advertisement. According to the court, the average consumer will make a link between the surface components and the biodegradability rather than thinking that the whole product is 100% biodegradable. As a result, the court did not find this commercial misleading.
(2) In relation to the interview with defendant's marketing manager, the court stated that this article was not signed by the marketing manager. The article only alleges to cite the manager, without it being proven or even alleged by the plaintiff, that this text would have been subject to the manager's prior approval before publishing on the website. On the other hand, the court is of the opinion that even if one could defend that the commercial is misleading in that not the entire product will be 100% degradable, this incorrect information will not mislead the consumer in making an economic decision which he would not have taken otherwise. According to the court, a consumer is not likely to be influenced by a news article on the internet to take its transactional decision, as he will more likely be influenced on the moment he is at the shop and has to decide which product he will buy.
(3) Thirdly, as to the mentioning on the product package, the court did not take into account the anonymous consumer statements as it could not verify whether these were objective. In addition, the fact that certain statements are made, according to the court, is not sufficient to conclude that there is actually a danger that the average consumer will be misled. Further, the court was of the opinion that the message on the package was clear enough to inform consumers that the product was only 100% biodegradable only in relation to the surface active components.
(4) Lastly, in relation to the advertisements made by the defendant, the court was of the opinion that defendant indeed only boasts the quality of its products. According to the court, the message defendant brings is clear: its products are more effective than other "green" cleaning products. However, as defendant possessed scientific proof that its product was indeed more effective than other green cleaning produces, the court did not see any infringement on misleading practices.