(1) It was held by the Civil Institute that at no point in any of the advertisements, consumers were adequately informed that the monthly rate of €19.99 is merely promotional and subject to two different time restrictions. Not only consumers had to subscribe to the defendant’s services before 31 October 2010, they were also only able to enjoy the rate of €19.99 until 31 December of that same year. Given that the advertisements were broadcasted and otherwise distributed late 2010, this means that the rate of €19.99 per month would only apply to, at most, four (4) monthly payments. While the television advertisements included disclaimers indicating these restrictions, they were deemed virtually illegible by the Court and therefore unsuitable. Further, neither the radio nor the internet advertisements made any mention of the restrictions, either in their body or by way of a disclaimer. The Court considered that although Article 7 (1) and (3) of the UCP Directive allows material information, such as price information, to be omitted from advertisements, this only applies where the medium of the advertisement is unsuitable for communicating the omitted information and the trader has taken necessary steps to make the information available to consumers by other means. This was not the case with the disclaimers included in the television advertisements due to the inherent difficulty in reading them. The Civil Institute found that, in this particular case, the statements made in the disclaimers displayed on the television advertisements should have been displayed at least as prominently as the other claims made in the advertisement. Consequently, the Civil Institute found that the television, radio and internet advertisements were misleading towards consumers.
(2) The television advertisements focused almost exclusively on the advantages and benefits of the defendant’s digital video recording box, but no mention was made whatsoever of the fact that this equipment was not included in the advertised monthly rate of €19.99. In fact the advertisement stated that consumers could enjoy the advertised benefits for €19.99 per month. This amounted to material information that was not communicated to consumers and could not be justified on the basis of Article 7 (1) or (3) of the Directive as the defendant did not adequately make this information available to consumers by other means. Consequently, the Court found that this advertisement amounted to misleading advertising.
(3) The internet advertisement made no mention whatsoever of the price of the mobile internet equipment which was necessary in order to use the defendant’s free mobile broadband services for less than 100 MB per month. This leaves consumers entirely unaware of the fact that a further cost will be incurred beyond the advertised €19.99 should they wish to enjoy free mobile broadband services amounting to less than 100 MB per month. This amounted to material information that was not communicated to consumers and could not be justified on the basis of Article 7 (1) or (3) of the Directive as the defendant did not adequately make this information available to consumers by other means. Consequently, this is a misleading omission. Further, the Civil Institute was motivated by the fact that the cost of the mobile internet equipment necessary was substantial, almost amounting to the advertised monthly rate of €19.99 itself.