Ítélkezési gyakorlat

  • Az ügy részletei
    • Nemzeti azonosító: Supreme Court, Judgement Kf.III.38.283/2018/12
    • Tagállam: Magyarország
    • Közhasználatú név:N/A
    • Határozat típusa: Legfelsőbb bírósági határozat
    • A határozat napja: 23/04/2019
    • Bíróság: Kúria
    • Tárgy:
    • Felperes:
    • Alperes:
    • Kulcsszavak: unfair commercial practices, misleading advertisement, misleading commercial practices, discounts
  • Az irányelv cikkei
    Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Section 1, Article 6, 2. Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, link
  • Megjegyzés

    A commercial practice is misleading and thus unfair if it causes the consumer to make a contractual decision the consumer otherwise wouldn’t have made. Making a contractual decision is a multi-stage process therefore commercial practice must be legally compliant in each stage and part-decision of the process.

  • Tények

    The dispute concerned a web shop ran by the plaintiffs, which contained pop-up advertisements offering “exclusive, non-repeatable personal deals” for visitors with specific durations. However, in actual reality, it was found by the respondent, a competition authority, that these offers were actually standardised, not unique offers as advertised, and thus misleading for the consumers. Due to this, it fined the plaintiffs.  The Court of First Instance found in favour of the respondent, meaning the case ascended to the Supreme Court at the plaintiff’s request.

  • Jogi kérdés

    1. Whether the advertised deals could be considered unique offers.

    2. Whether the consumer was urged to immediately decide by the web shop

    3. Whether this constitutes a contractual decision.

  • Határozat

    The Supreme Court found that due to the “cookie”-based nature of these deals, any visitor to the web shop could meet with them multiple times, assuming they have been using one of the many methods that evade or frequently delete “cookies” in their browsers. Thus, the Supreme Court found these to not be  unique, repeatable offers, contrary to the web shop's advertisement. Regarding the urging of consumers to make an immediate decision, the Supreme Court also determined that since only a 2-minute window was presented by the web shop, this could not be construed as sufficient time to make an informed choice. Finally, with regard to the question of contractual decision, the Supreme Court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that only the actual purchase is a contractual decision, noting that this can be a multi-stage process and that the competition authority can legally review each separate stage and partial decisions by consumers.

    Teljes szöveg: Teljes szöveg

  • Kapcsolódó ügyek

    Nincs találat

  • Jogi szakirodalom

    Nincs találat

  • Eredmény

    The Supreme Court rejected the plaintiffs’ appeal. It determined that the web shop's advertised deals did not constitute unique offers, despite the web shop’s assertations to the contrary, and that the consumer was prevented from making an informed choice due to the extremely short window of time to take advantage of the deals.