Unfair commercial practices
Print this page2024
IPPT20241114, CJEU, Compass Banca
The concept of ‘average consumer’ does not exclude the possibility that an individual’s decision-making capacity may be impaired by constraints: Reasonably well-informed nature does not exclude the possibility that a commercial practice may materially distort the economic behaviour of the notional consumer. Also not excluded is taking into account the influence of cognitive biases on that average consumer. However, not any risk of a cognitive bias occurring in the context of a commercial practice would necessarily have the effect of materially distorting the behaviour of that notional consumer. A commercial practice of simultaneously proposing to the consumer an offer for a personal loan and an offer for an insurance product not related to that loan does not constitute a commercial practice that is in all circumstances aggressive or unfair. Such a practice, even without a cooling-off period, does not, as such, imply acts of pressure, even if that practice is likely to create a framing bias. Directive 2005/29 must be interpreted as not precluding a national measure which allows a national authority to require that trader to grant the consumer a reasonable cooling-off period between the dates on which the insurance contract and the loan contract are signed. Once it has been established that a commercial practice adopted by a particular trader is ‘aggressive’ or, more generally, ‘unfair’. And unless there are other means less prejudicial to the freedom to conduct a business which are equally effective. Article 24 (3) of Directive 2016/97 must be interpreted as not precluding such a requirement where the commercial practice of framing is regarded as ‘agressive’ or, more generally, as ‘unfair’: That provision does not require national authorities to go beyond what this Directive calls for, but merely requires that if such products and/or services are ‘cross-sold’, the customers also have the possibility to buy them separately. Nor does it preclude those authorities from using their powers under Directive 2005/29 to put an end to an ‘agressive’ or ‘unfair’ commercial practice.
IPPT20240919, CJEU, Parfumerie Akzente v KTF
National labelling requirements for products sold online fall outside the coordinated field of the E-Commerce Directive 2000/31. Product labelling, like packaging, shape or composition, constitutes a requirement applicable to goods as such, which the EU legislature has expressly intended to exclude from the coordinated field of Directive 2000/31. Consequently, an information society service provider is subject, on the one hand, to Directive 2000/31 with regard to requirements relating in particular to online advertising and, on the other hand, to the applicable EU rules giving effect to the labelling obligations governing the products offered for sale on its website. Language requirements for labelling ensure consumer protection and public health. The protection of public health cannot be fully ensured if consumers are not able to take note of, and understand, the information concerning the function of cosmetic products and the specific precautions to be observed in their use.
2016
IPPT20161013, CJEU, Servoprax v Roche Diagnostics
Parallel importer of a self-diagnosis device is not obliged to carry out a new assessment in the importing Member State to certify the conformity of the labelling and the translation of the instructions for its use, when that device has already been subject to a conformity assessment by a notified body and it bears a CE marking
IPPT20160907, CJEU, Deroo-Blanquart v Sony
Sale of a computer with pre-installed software without option to purchase it without is in itself not an unfair commercial practice within the meaning of Article 5(2) of Directive 2005/29 unless such a practice is contrary to the requirements of professional diligence and materially distorts or is likely to materially distort the economic behaviour of the average consumer with regard to the product, a matter which is for the national court to determine by taking account of the specific circumstances of the case in the main proceedings. Failure to indicate prices of computer and software separately is not a misleading commercial practice in the context of a combined offer consisting of the sale of a computer equipped with pre-installed software, the failure to indicate the price of each of those items of software does not constitute a misleading commercial practice within the meaning of Article 5(4)(a) and Article 7 of Directive 2005/29.
IPPT20160630, CJEU, Lidl v Freistaat Sachsen
Obligation to indicate total price and price per weight unit on labels is not in conflict with the freedom to conduct a business ex article 6(1) TEU and article 15(1) and 16 of the Charter. Limitations to freedom of conducting a business proportionate to aims Regulation. Obligation to provide information on labels of the same article concerning the marketing standards for meat and poultry is not in conflict with the principle of non-discrimination ex article 40(2) TFEU. Compared products belong to different agricultural sectors.
2015
Unfair commercial practices: It has to be assumed that consumers read the list of ingredients of the product before purchase.The presence of a list of ingredients does not in itself exclude the possibility that the labelling is misleading. Directive 2000/13 precludes misleading labelling, even though the actual contents are apparent from the list of ingredients.
IPPT20150416, CJEU, Nemzeti v UPC
Communication, by a professional to only one single consumer, of erroneous information is a ‘misleading commercial practice’. If there is a misleading practice it is not necessary to determine whether such a practice is also contrary to the requirements of professional diligence.
2013
IPPT20131219, CJEU, Trento Sviluppo v AGCM
A commercial practice is misleading where that practice contains false information, or is likely to deceive the average consumer, and is likely to cause the consumer to take a transactional decision that he would not take otherwise
IPPT20131017, ECJ, RLvS v Stuttgarter Wochenblatt
Advertisements: unfair Commercial Practices Directive does not preclude the application of a national provision under which those publishers are required to use the term ‘advertisement’ for advertisements, unless it is evident from arrangement and layout of the publication that it is an advertisement.
IPPT20131003, CJEU, BKK v Wettbewerbszentrale
Terms of provision: terms of a provision of EU law which makes no express reference to the law of the Member States must be given an autonomous and uniform interpretation throughout the European Union, taking into account the context of the provision and the purpose of the legislation in question.
Trader: public body entrusted with a task of general interest, such as management of compulsory health insurance is a “trader” within the meaning of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive.
IPPT20130919, CJEU, CHS v Team4 Travel
Unfair commercial practices: if a practice can be categorized as a misleading practice, it is not necessary to determine whether this practice is also contrary to the requirements of professional diligence.
IPPT20130718, CJEU, Citroën v FvF
General prohibition of combined offers involving financial services to consumers permitted under directive and freedom to provide services
2012
IPPT20121018, CJEU, Purely Creative
Unfair commercial practice when giving the false impression that consumer has already won prize, while consumer has to incur (minimal) costs first to claim the prize
IPPT20120312, CJEU, Perenicova v SOS financ
A possible advantage for one of the parties is no reason to annul a contract as a whole when it contains one or more unfair terms
2011
IPPT20110512, CJEU, Konsumentombudsman v Ving
Reference only to entry-level price not in itself a misleading omission: Reference to website for product characteristics may be allowed
