Office of Fair Trading v Purely Creative Ltd and others [2011] EWHC 106 (Civil) – Regs 3, 5 & 6, and para 31 of Schedule 1, CPUTR – s 215 EA.
1) purposive interpretation of legislation implementing EU Directives.
2) for the purposes of para 31, “any action ... incurring a cost”, did not include a cost which was de minimus in proportion to the value of the prize, but disclosing the actual cost (but not the cost of the prize) or avoiding the use of the words “win” or “prize” may not of itself make D’s practice fair.
3) D does not escape the purpose of para 31 by offering a no cost or de minimus option for claiming a prize if D recommends the use of another method the cost of which falsifies the assertion that the “prize” is a prize rather than a purchase.
4) “average consumer” test to be conducted, where possible, without recourse to statistics or experts.
5) no irrebuttable presumption that average consumer will read whole of a label.
6) doing nothing may constitute a transactional decision.
7) a misleading act or omission need not be the sole cause of average consumer’s decision so long as, but for it, he would not have so decided.
- meaning of “likely”.
8) combined effect of all relevant misleading acts and omissions to be considered in determining if causation test satisfied in either reg 5 or 6.
9) in para (3)(a) of reg 6, “material information” is that which is necessary for the average consumer to make an informed transactional decision.
10) average consumers should not be assumed to be habitual consumers of a product.
undefined: unpaid