Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 1, Article 2, (b) Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 1, Article 2, (d) Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 1, Article 2, (k) Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 1, Article 3, 1. Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Article 5, 1. Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Article 5, 2. Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Section 1, Article 7, 1. Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Section 1, Article 7, 4. Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Section 1, Article 7, 5. Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 4, Article 13

The failure to advertise airplane ticket prices in accordance with the rules imposed by the Air Services Regulation constitutes an unfair commercial practice. It is irrelevant whether consumers have actually entered into a contract due to the incorrect pricing.

The Consumer Rights Protection Centre (CRPC) found that the trader, an airline company, did not identify the final price of the air fare on its website (as required by the Air Services Regulation). The trader argued that it was a technical issue of its website set up that did not allow it to comply with the Air Services Regulation.

Does the failure to comply with Air Services Regulation in terms of displaying the final air fare price on the website, constitute an unfair commercial practice?

The CPRC decided that providing information on a website is a commercial practice.

It also decided that it is not necessary to demonstrate that consumers have actually entered into a contract. It is sufficient to show that, as a result of the commercial practice, the consumer either decides to make the purchasing decision, or to refrain from it.

Hence, the UCP Directive applies to all of the trader's actions (or omissions) to attract consumer to its website, even before the consumer has taken the purchasing decision.

As the final price (which constitutes material information for the consumer in its transactional decision making process) was not identified correctly, the trader is committing a misleading omission defined in article 7.4.(c) of the UCP Directive.

URL: http://www.ptac.gov.lv/upload/ptac_lemumi/2009/airbaltic_cenas_leemums_izrakts_10.12.2009.pdf

Pilns teksts: Pilns teksts

Nav pieejami nekādi rezultāti

Nav pieejami nekādi rezultāti

The defendant was found liable for having committed an unfair commercial practice. A fine was imposed.