Case law

  • Case Details
    • National ID: MD 2011:22
    • Member State: Sweden
    • Common Name:link
    • Decision type: Court decision in appeal
    • Decision date: 18/08/2011
    • Court: The Swedish Market Court
    • Subject:
    • Plaintiff: Småföretagare mot Yellow Register Online
    • Defendant: Yellow Register On Line AB
    • Keywords: advertisement, B2B, telephone, unfair commercial practices
  • Directive Articles
    Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Article 5, 1. Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Section 1, Article 7, 1. Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Section 2, Article 8
  • Headnote
    In marketing of internet services, falsely claiming that:

    (1) it is urgent to accept an offer, that an offer will only we available for a limited time or in any other way give the impression that the receiver urgently has to accept the offer not to lose it,
    (2) an offer is unique for the receiver or that the receiver is one of few chosen,
    (3) the defendant does not wish to sell anything, and
    (4) a component of a composite product, or the production of a website is offered for free when the component or production is actually included in the regular price,

    constitute misleading commercial practice.
  • Facts
    The defendant promotes and sells internet services such as websites and advertisement space to companies. The sale is conducted by phone calls to companies throughout Sweden.

    The plaintiff is an organization which consists of Swedish companies that oppose against the commercial practices used by the defendant to market and sell their internet services.

    The plaintiff claimed the defendant was using misleading commercial and the defendant admitted to the claims.
  • Legal issue
    The court prohibits the defendant, under the penalty of a fine, in the marketing of its internet services, to claim;
    (1) it is urgent to accept an offer, that an offer will only we available for a limited time or in any other way give the impression that the receiver urgently has to accept the offer not to lose it,
    (2) an offer is unique for the receiver or that the receiver is one of few chosen,
    (3) the defendant does not wish to sell anything, and
    (4) a component of a composite product or the production of a website is offered for free when the component or production is actually included in the regular price.

    The court firstly states that the plaintiff has presented an extensive amount of proof to support their claim that the defendant has marketed its services with the alleged statements. Hence, it is shown that the statements were made. Furthermore, the court finds that the defendant has not presented any evidence to show that the statements are true. On this ground, the statements must be considered false. Based on the characteristics and nature of the marketing, the court finds that the marketing affects or is likely to affect the recipient's ability to take an informed transactional decision.
  • Decision

    Does it constitute unfair marketing practices to falsely give the recipient the impression that:
    (1) it is urgent to accept an offer, that an offer will only we available for a limited time or in any other way give the impression that the receiver urgently has to accept the offer not to lose it,
    (2) an offer is unique for the receiver or that the receiver is one of few chosen,
    (3) the defendant does not wish to sell anything, and
    (4) a component of a composite product, or the production of a website is offered for free when the component or production is actually included in the regular price?

    URL: http://www.marknadsdomstolen.se/Filer/Avgöranden/Dom2011-22.pdf

    Full text: Full text

  • Related Cases

    No results available

  • Legal Literature

    No results available

  • Result
    The court approved the plaintiff’s claims.