Case law

  • Case Details
    • National ID: Rotterdam District Court 25 July 2013, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2013:5540
    • Member State: Netherlands
    • Common Name:Rotterdam District Court 25 July 2013, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2013:5540
    • Decision type: Court decision, first degree
    • Decision date: 25/07/2013
    • Court: Rotterdam District Court
    • Subject:
    • Plaintiff: BCC (Elektro Speciaalzaken) B.V.
    • Defendant: Autoriteit Consument en Markt
    • Keywords: consumer rights, misleading commercial practices, misleading statements, repair
  • Directive Articles
    Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Section 1, Article 6, 1., (g)
  • Headnote
    Not providing consumers with correct information about their possibility to replace or have repaired their goods in case of non-conformity, constitutes a misleading commercial practice.
  • Facts
    The plaintiff sells household appliances and electronics. The defendant, being the Dutch Consumer Authority, conducted an inquiry into plaintiff's compliance with rules regarding warranty and conformity (as set out in the Dutch Civil Code).

    The defendant held that plaintiff's sellers provide consumers with incorrect information which misleads consumers about their right to free repair or replacement in the event of non-conformity of the product concerned. This may cause the consumer to waive its right to free repair or replacement, which he would not have done if he was informed correctly.

    Therefore, the defendant concluded that it was likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision that he would not have taken otherwise, which constitutes a misleading commercial practice.

    The defendant imposed a fine on the plaintiff. The plaintiff denied that the defendant was entitled to impose such fine and denied that there was a breach of the Dutch Civil Code.  
  • Legal issue
    According to the court, a trader (plaintiff) may reasonably be expected to provide consumers with clear, comprehensive and understandable information about the consequences of a non-conformity of the goods and the right to repair and replacement.

    Providing false information is regarded as a misleading commercial practice. By providing such misleading information, consumers are prejudiced in their legitimate interests.

    The defendant was therefore entitled to take enforcement action. The fine imposed was appropriate and necessary.  
  • Decision

    Does not providing consumers with correct information about their possibility to replace or have repaired their goods in case of non-conformity, constitute a misleading commercial practice?

    URL: http://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:RBROT:2013:5540

    Full text: Full text

  • Related Cases

    No results available

  • Legal Literature

    No results available

  • Result
    The plaintiff's request was denied.