The court stated that advertising can be regarded as misleading as referred to in Article 3(a) of Directive 2006/114/EC (implemented into Lithuanian law by Article 5(5)(2) of the Law on Advertising) when the information provided in the advertising is vague, ambiguous or the essential information required to make the decision about the transaction to an average consumer is not provided in time.
If the above-mentioned advertising could be seen as implying a right for the plaintiff to apply 0 percent discount on some reimbursable medicines, it would create an unjustifiable situation allowing the plaintiff to abuse its rights by alluring the customers to come to the plaintiff’s pharmacies and not apply any discounts at all. Since the advertising contained statements about discounts on a certain group of goods (reimbursable medicines) and not contained any exemptions from such statement, an average consumer could have reasonably understood that discounts were applied for all goods in that specified group (reimbursable medicines).
Taking the above into consideration, the court confirmed that the plaintiff’s advertising was misleading, as not all reimbursable medicines were marketed with the discount during the "happy hours".