Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Section 1, Article 6, 1., (d)

Using advertising materials stating that the product marketed by a trader is the best on the market and has the best price may amount to a misleading advertising practice.

During the period February 2013 - April 2013, the defendant published on its website, displayed in window shops within commercial centres catalogues and posters, and broadcasted on radio stations, promotional materials containing the following advertisment "1 first price. The best product at the best price".

The General Directorate for Public Finance in Bucharest (the plaintiff) considered that the use by a trader of the advertisement "1 first price. The best product at the best price"  is misleading.

The plaintiff stated that the defendant used in an absolute manner ("the best") an attribute ("good"), without any reference to clearly identifiable criteria. Thus, the promotional material suggests an idea of superiority of the defendant's product and related price, by implicitly comparing it with the other products on the market, and it does not compare in an objective manner one or more essential, representative, relevant and verifiable  characteristics of the products, which may also include the price. 

The defendant argued that the advertisement referred only to certain products which had an excellent price-quality ratio. However, the plaintiff rejected this argument as the advertisement did not reflect in any manner such conclusion. Therefore, any consumer could have been misled while considering whether or not to make a transactional decision with regard to the defendant's products, in the sense that consumers may actually be led to believe that they are  purchasing the best product at the best price from the defendant. This contradicts the reality since the advertised products were not actually objectively compared to other similar products available on the market and no relevant or essential criteria of those products, including price, were in fact verified.

The defendant was sanctioned with an administrative warning for using the advertisement "1 first price. The best product at the best price". The defendant's actions were deemed as a breach of art. 6 a) and c) of Law no. 158/2008 on misleading and comparative advertising.

Does the use of promotional materials indicating that a trader's products are the best and have the best price may be considered as misleading advertising?

URL: http://www.hervis-sports.ro/medias/sys_master/8900903403550/Declaratie_rectificativa_Hervis%2BSports.pdf

Full text: Full text

No results available

No results available

The defendant was sanctioned with an administrative warning, following which the defendant made a public statement acknowledging the facts described by the plaintiff in the sanctioning minutes and confirming that it would cease to use the advertisement.