In general, a consumer must be considered as an observant and careful average consumer as intended in the law of the European Union.
Regarding the first demand, the consumer should not make decisions based only on the headlines used in marketing. Therefore, the average consumer cannot understand the price commitment by the defendant as a price statement but as an objective to offer the most affordable price on the market. Furthermore, the variety of products is extensive and the products might differ from each other even slightly. The price commitment cannot give an impression that the products offered by the defendant are always available in other stores. Therefore, the commitment concerning the price differential payment cannot be found as an unfair practice as intended in chapter 2 sections 3 and 6 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Regarding the second demand, based onexperiences in the Member States of the European Union, misleading price comparison must be assessed on the grounds of whether the recommended retail price is equivalent to the general selling price or whether it has already been used for a longer period of time on the market. According to evidence, selling prices are usually lower than retail prices based on which the practice is against chapter 2 section 6 subsection 2 point 3 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Regarding the third demand, the offers in question have been repeated in part for the same products and, therefore, the marketing concerning the statements has been false from the view point of consumers in accordance with section 1 point 6 of the Government's Decree on Unfair Practice in Marketing and Customer Relations.
Hela texten: Hela texten