The defendant launched a television, radio and internet campaign in which it made several claims about the superiority of its 3G and 4G telecommunications services. Namely, the defendant stated that it had “the best 3G and 4G coverage”; the “best national 4G coverage” and that “every district capital and island (in Portugal) already had 4G coverage”. Additionally, it also claimed that it had won several excellency awards.
The plaintiff claimed the statements were not true as there were no verifiable studies from the Portuguese telecommunications regulator (“ANACOM”) which could support the defendant’s claims. Moreover, the claim “All district’s capital and islands (in Portugal) already have 4G coverage” was not correct as there were two islands at the time of rendering the decision that did not have 4G coverage (contrary to what the defendant had stated). Furthermore, the plaintiff also argued that the defendant had not won any excellency awards.
Accordingly, the plaintiff considered that the defendant’s campaign disrespected Article 10 (truthfulness principle), Article 11 (misleading advertising) and Article 16 (comparative advertising) of Decree-Law 330/90, of 23 October 1990 (the “Advertising Act”). Further, it also claimed that the defendant’s actions would amount to an unfair commercial practice as per Decree-Law 57/2008, of 26 October 2008. Finally, it was argued that the defendant’s actions were in breach of ICAP’s code of conduct.