Case law

  • Case Details
    • National ID: 10/16013
    • Member State: France
    • Common Name:10/16013
    • Decision type: Court decision in appeal
    • Decision date: 24/10/2012
    • Court: Court of Appeals Paris
    • Subject:
    • Plaintiff: SAS Yoplait France
    • Defendant: SNC Andros France
    • Keywords: competition, material information, misleading omissions, misleading statements, unfair competition
  • Directive Articles
    Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Section 1, Article 6, 2. Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Section 1, Article 7, 1.
  • Headnote
    (1) Omitting to provide material information on the content of a product, constitutes a misleading commercial practice.

    (2) Creating the impression that a product is compared with competing products, whereas that product is in fact compared with the same trader's own previous version of the product, constitutes a misleading commercial practice.  
  • Facts
    The defendant sold fruit compote with the mention "less sugar recipe" with no further indication on the visible side of the package as regards the sugar content and the reference used for comparison ("less").

    Under the package it was indicated that the defendant had developed a new recipe with more fruits and less sugar, hence that the statement "less" was not to be understood as a comparison with competitor's products.

    The plaintiff (a competing company) claimed this commercial practice was unfair. In first instance, the tribunal denied the plaintiff's claim.  
  • Legal issue
    According to the court, the defendant omitted to mention material information which the average consumer needs to take an informed transactional decision.

    In the view of the court, the lack of information regarding the sugar content and the fact that the comparison was made between the old and new versions of the recipe and not with competitors' products, was likely to cause the average consumer to make a decision of purchase that he/she would have not made otherwise.

    As a result, this practice was considered misleading by omitting material information which the consumer needs to make an informed transactional decision.  
  • Decision

    (1) Does omitting to provide material information on the content of a product, constitute a misleading commercial practice?

    (2) Does creating the impression that a product is compared with competing products, whereas that product is in fact compared with the same trader's own previous version of the product, constitute a misleading commercial practice?  

    Full text: Full text

  • Related Cases

    No results available

  • Legal Literature

    No results available

  • Result
    The plaintiff's claim was granted.