You are not currently signed in - enter your email address and password into the boxes below, or create a new account.

Nemzeti Fogyasztóvédelmi Hatóság v UPC Magyarország Kft, C-388/13, EU:C:[2015]:225 – Articles 2, 3, 5 and 6 UCPD – (CPUTR).

1) where a commercial practice is misleading within article 6(1) UCPD, it does not also have to be contrary to the requirements of professional diligence under article 5(2)(a) in order to be unfair and prohibited by article 5(1).
2) that erroneous information was given on only one occasion and affected only one single consumer was immaterial as to whether it constituted a “misleading commercial practice”.
3) whether misleading practice is unintentional entirely irrelevant, as is whether actual harm suffered by consumer.
- word ‘likely’ in article 6 essentially preventive; suffices that misleading information capable of adversely influencing consumer.
- fact that additional cost imposed on consumer is insignificant is irrelevant.
4) assumption under UCPD that consumer is in weaker position than trader; thus whether consumer could obtain correct information for himself was irrelevant.

undefined: unpaid

Related case digests