Case law

  • Case Details
    • National ID: 3-12-438
    • Member State: Estonia
    • Common Name:link
    • Decision type: Administrative decision in appeal
    • Decision date: 29/01/2014
    • Court: Tallinn Circuit Court
    • Subject:
    • Plaintiff: Elisa Eesti AS
    • Defendant: Estonian Consumer Protection Board
    • Keywords: misleading advertising, price comparison
  • Directive Articles
    Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive, Article 2, (b) Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive, Article 3, (b)
  • Headnote
    An advertisement is misleading even if upon receiving additional information it becomes apparent that the meaning of the words used in the advertisement differs from the meaning attributed to them in everyday context. The possibility to obtain additional information about the service advertised and, thus, understanding the meaning attributed to the words in a particular advertisement, does not render an otherwise misleading advertisement not misleading.
  • Facts
    The defendant issued an injunction to ban the plaintiff from displaying its advertisements for its service of prepaid calling cards , which the defendant found misleading to consumers. The advertisements promised applicants 60 EUR, unlimited free calls with friends, free Internet and other services that were according to the terms and conditions of the service actually dependent on how much money the client first loads on the prepaid card.

    The plaintiff brought a claim against the defendant claiming the injunction be repealed because the advertisements were not misleading due to the fact that everyone had the opportunity to find more information about the service and familiarize themselves with the terms and conditions on the plaintiff's website or ask information from the customer service. The plaintiff also claimed that the advertisement could not be deemed misleading, as it is never possible to present all of the necessary information in an advertisement.
  • Legal issue
    The court ruled that although it is not possible to explain every aspect of a service in the advertisement with maximum detail, it is not allowed to present a service in such a way that the words used in the advertisement obtain a totally different meaning from the meaning attributed to them in an everyday context when one obtains additional information about the service.

    Even though consumers had the possibility to additionally acquaint themselves with the terms and conditions of the service, the misleading of consumers came about through the usage of such words in the advertisement that obtained a different meaning when one read the terms and conditions of the service. However, a consumer who does not read the terms of the service forms his consumption decision solely based on the advertisement and due to that may make an erroneous consumption decision.

    The court ruled that the fact whether consumers were able to familiarize themselves with the terms and conditions of the service and obtain additional information easily or not did not matter in this case, as the advertisement itself may not be misleading.
  • Decision

    Can an advertisement be deemed misleading if, although, the everyday meaning of the words used in the advertisement differs from the meaning attributed to the words in the advertisement, it is possible to obtain additional information about the service which enables one to understand the meaning attributed to the words in the advertisement?

    URL: https://www.riigiteataja.ee/kohtulahendid/detailid.html?id=120072606

    Full text: Full text

  • Related Cases

    No results available

  • Legal Literature

    No results available

  • Result
    The circuit court upheld the first instance court's judgment and found that the advertisement was, indeed, misleading.