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

It is misleading for an agent not to disclose to the consumer the nature of the services provided, hence not informing the consumer on the intermediary nature of the services.

The plaintiff acted as an agent for, hence promotes the services of, ING Bank.

It was established that, when the plaintiff communicated business hours at its office, it primarily referred to the office hours of ING Bank rather than to its own business hours.

Further, the ING logo was depicted outside of the office of the plaintiff, and inside the office, the agent promoted its services by providing ING flyers containing information on the services offered by ING.

Next, plaintiff's employees wore ING badges and some of them introduced themselves as being ING employees.

It was established that it was unclear for a consumer to release that he was in fact dealing with an agent only, rather than with an ING Bank branch.

The court came to this conclusion based on the fact that the overall impression that was created by the plaintiff, could lead the average consumer to think he was dealing with ING Bank whereas in reality, the plaintiff was only an agent providing intermediary services.

Particular emphasis was placed on the omission by the plaintiff to mention that it only acted is an intermediary.

Is it misleading for an agent not to disclose to the consumer the nature of the services provided, hence not informing the consumer on the intermediary nature of the services?

URL: http://portal.just.ro/JurisprudentaVizualizare.aspx?id_speta=18418&idInstitutie=320

Full text: Full text

No results available

No results available

The plaintiffs request to annul the sanction applied was denied.