The President compared the prices offered by the defendant with the prices of similar services provided by other traders acting in the neighboring area. The President concluded that by advertising his services as being the cheapest, the defendant misled the consumers.
The President emphasized that the average consumer usually is not interested in prices of funeral services, and in the event he may actually need those service, he usually does not compare prices. Moreover, consumers do not often make use of funeral services and, given the fact that they might have just lost a close person, consumer are generally susceptible to advertising such as that carried out by the defendant. In the light of the above, the President comes to the conclusion that the commercial practice of the defendant has distorted the consumers' behavior, i.e. the decision whether to obtain services from the defendant.
The President ruled that the defendant breached the prohibition on unfair commercial practices consisting in using misleading advertisements and that the defendant violated articles 5 section 1 and 2 point 1 and section 3 point 5 in connection with article 4 section 1 and 2 of the Unfair Commercial Practices Act, as well as article 24 section 1 and section 2 point 3 of the Competition and Consumer Protection Act.
Pełny tekst: Pełny tekst