Having examined all the circumstances of the case, the information provided by the plaintiff and the complaints received, the court found that the plaintiff was not entitled to send commercial communications inviting consumers to play a game of chance.
The court established the content of the relevant commercial communications to be of insistent and unwanted nature from the viewpoint of an average consumer.
The court also found that in some cases the plaintiff had not obtained the prior informed consent of the consumer and also had not provided the consumer with an opportunity to decline further receipt of the commercial communications. Additionally, the court considered that it is unfair to keep sending commercial communications to consumers who had in the past played the game of chance. By continuing to send commercial communications for an unlimited time to the consumers’ phone numbers, the plaintiff was threatening to limit the right of consumers to choose for what purposes they want to use their phones.
URL: http://www.ptac.gov.lv/upload/ptac_lemumi/zeltadrudzis_e03-ptu-k8-8_izraksts.pdf
Pilns teksts: Pilns teksts