Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Section 1, Article 7, 1. Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 4, Article 11, 2., (a)

Misleading omissions generate a high risk of deception and potential harm to consumers. For this reason, the admission of preliminary enforcement of bans on such deceiving commercial practices is justified.

The plaintiff, a telecoms provider, organized a promotion that was advertised on the plaintiff’s website and in brochures and magazines. Some of the advertisements did not mention additional material conditions for signing up to the promotion.

The defendant investigated these advertisements. They were considered to represent a misleading commercial practice because they left consumers with the false impression of absence of additional conditions for signing up to the promotion.

The defendant banned the advertisements and ordered the preliminary enforcement of the ban. As a result, the ban became effective prior to its actual entry into force.

To suspend the preliminary enforcement, the plaintiff lodged an appeal, arguing that the ban is unfounded.

Is it justified to impose preliminary measures (such as ban on a use of certain advertisement) regarding an alleged misleading commercial practice?

In a short reasoning the court held that a high risk of deception and harm to consumers’ economic interests are inherent to misleading omissions of material information.

Should a preliminary enforcement of the ban on such omissions not be ordered, consumers would suffer irreversible harm.

For this reason and to safeguard consumers’ interests, the admission of preliminary enforcement was considered justified in cases of misleading omission of material information.

URL: http://www.sac.government.bg/court22.nsf/d6397429a99ee2afc225661e00383a86/13443583abb6419ac22576cd00391c4a?OpenDocument

Пълен текст: Пълен текст

Няма налични резултати

Няма налични резултати

The court upheld the admission of preliminary enforcement of the ban on misleading practice.