When can a company’s activities be said to mislead consumers? Four court rulings from Poland’s Court of Competition and Consumer Protection (SOKiK) and Court of Appeal (SA) shed light on the question

The following court rulings concern decisions on the protection of collective consumer interests issued by Poland’s Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK). Two decisions were fully upheld while the other two were partially changed.

Euro Net

In September 2013, UOKiK issued a decision finding that electronics and home appliance retailer Euro Net misled customers of its online store RTV EURO AGD www.euro.com.pl. According to ads it ran, clients would not pay for delivery if they bought a given product by the coming Friday. However, the offer was not actually limited in time, and began again every Monday. UOKiK levied a fine of more than 500,000 PLN (ca. 125,000 EUR). SOKiK shared the Authority’s findings and conclusions regarding the practice, as did the Court of Appeal, which in July upheld the decision but cut the fine in half. It reasoned that UOKiK failed to fully consider that the company’s violation applied only to online sales. It also cited the company’s abandonment of the practice.

CT Creative Team

In January 2014 UOKiK issued a decision finding that mobile solutions provider CT Creative Team infringed collective consumer interests when it failed to properly inform users of costs associated with the use of its premium rate additional services. UOKiK imposed a fine of more than 31,000 PLN (ca. 8,000 EUR) In July, SOKiK dismissed the company’s appeal and fully upheld the decision. In its oral justification, it pointed to the fact that users were not informed every time that they used the additional options in the games that they were also sending a premium rate SMS.

Rainbow Tours

In December 2013 UOKiK issued a decision finding that travel agency Rainbow Tours had infringed collective consumer interests. From October 1 2012 to 22 March 2013 the company withheld information that was essential to clients when they were signing an agreement for a trip to Thailand. In its catalogues and on its webpage it ran information suggesting clients could receive a complimentary cruise to the island of Bon, but in reality it wasn’t free. UOKiK imposed a fine of 88,000 PLN (ca. 22,000 EUR). The company appealed in SOKiK, which overturned the decision, but in July 2016 the SA ruled that Rainbow Tours had indeed misled consumers. It nonetheless reduced the fine by half because the practice was short-lived and only a small number of agreements were signed.

Indywidualne Biznesowe Doradztwo Finansowe (Individual Business Financial Advisory)

The last of the decisions was issued in August 2013. UOKiK ruled that an ad being run by financial advisory firm Indywidualne Biznesowe Doradztwo Finansowe misled consumers by suggesting that gold is a widely accepted means of payment. It imposed a fine of 13,000 PLN (ca. 3250 EUR), and in March 2015 SOKiK dismissed the company’s appeal, as did, in August 2016, the Court of Appeal, the latter on the grounds that it is unacceptable to create the impression among consumers that gold functions as money and is a safe investment.

The appeal procedure

An enterprise may appeal an UOKiK decision to SOKiK, and a SOKiK ruling, in turn, to the Court of Appeal in Warsaw. A cassation appeal from a Court of Appeal judgment can be filed with the Supreme Court.

Additional information for the media

Press Office, UOKiK
Pl. Powstańców Warszawy 1, 00-950 Warsaw
Phone.: +48 22 827 28 92, +48 22 55 60 314, +48 22 55 60 430
E-mail: [SCODE]Yml1cm9wcmFzb3dlQHVva2lrLmdvdi5wbA==[ECODE]

Twitter: @UOKiKgovPL