Short Reads

If you can’t stand the heat: kitchen retailers fined for misleading consumers

If you can’t stand the heat: kitchen retailers fined for misleading

If you can’t stand the heat: kitchen retailers fined for misleading consumers

01.10.2020 NL law

There is a new enforcement trend in the Netherlands; consumer protection is shifting from private enforcement before the civil courts, to public enforcement through the Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM), the combined antitrust and consumer protection authority. This is not mere cheap talk from the authority; multimillion fines have already been imposed on Dutch telecom operators and a Dutch energy company, whereas fines approximating one million euro have been imposed on three kitchen retailers, all for allegedly misleading consumers.

On 24 September 2020, the District Court of Rotterdam handed the ACM a clear victory when it dismissed all appeals by the kitchen retailers. The takeaway? Consumer protection compliance is fast becoming as important as antitrust and privacy compliance.

An investigation by ACM into three kitchen retailers – all part of the same group – revealed that, between 2015 and 2017, they had misled consumers during consumer events in the Netherlands. Consumers had to fill out forms which looked like purchase agreements in order to be eligible for a special event discount. These forms stated prices and terms of payment and mentioned that consumers had to pay 30% if they decided not to finalize the purchase. According to the ACM, the entire process was aimed at giving consumers the impression that they had bought a kitchen, whereas, in reality, consumers were not legally bound by the offer. In 2019, the three retailers were fined for providing consumers with misleading information, which is an ‘unfair commercial practice’ under the Dutch rules implementing the EU Unfair Commercial Practices Directive.

The three retailers appealed their fines before the Rotterdam District Court; this appeal was unsuccessful. The court agreed with the ACM’s assessment that the retailer’s trading practices were misleading, as the average consumer could be led to believe that it had entered into a binding purchasing agreement through the act of signing the discount form. The court dismissed the retailers’ argument that the ACM’s focus on the text of the forms was too narrow, and that it should have instead looked at the entire sales process, during which the consumers were allegedly informed orally that they were not legally bound by the form. The court stressed that a “reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect consumer” would tend to afford more weight to the misleading text of the form, as opposed to a trader’s oral commitment. Accordingly, the discount forms were likely to materially distort the economic behaviour of the targeted consumers.

This judgment is further evidence of the ACM’s priority to tackle unfair, deceptive and fraudulent business practices. Although a trader’s voluntary commitment to end a certain practice can sometimes be sufficient to avoid a full-blown investigation, there is no guarantee that the ACM will be satisfied by such commitment. Instead, as this case shows, the ACM will not shy away from imposing high fines if it believes the facts warrant it. Consumer protection compliance is therefore fast becoming as important for companies as antitrust and privacy compliance.

 

This article was published in the Competition Newsletter of October 2020. Other articles in this newsletter:

 

 

Related news

11.01.2022 EU law
2022: the big reveal of 2021’s competition law promises

Short Reads - 2021 was riddled with sneak previews of a “review of competition policy tools with unprecedented scope and ambition”. These sneak previews, alongside 2021’s other competition law developments, seem to point in the direction of a more ‘social’ side to competition law in 2022, as well as looming Big Tech and Big Pharma battles, intensified (international) cooperation, more clarity on merger-related obligations for companies, and shiny new vertical and horizontal block exemption regulations. 2022 will reveal how and when the revised tools will materialise.

Read more

13.12.2021 BE law
Een onrechtmatig verkregen klantenlijst mag niet worden gebruikt om klanten van een concurrent af te werven

Articles - Het Hof van beroep te Gent(1) oordeelde dat het actief benaderen van klanten van een concurrent, door gebruik te maken van een onrechtmatig verkregen klantenlijst, onrechtmatige afwerving is en de bedrijfsgeheimen schendt. Het bevel tot staking van deze oneerlijke marktpraktijk strekt zich enkel uit tot de klanten die nog niet afgeworven zijn en moet beperkt zijn in de tijd.

Read more

13.12.2021 BE law
Publicité comparative des prix : prétendre faussement d’avoir le prix le plus bas est une pratique commerciale déloyale, mais être un concurrent et parler négativement de cette pratique à des tiers l'est aussi

Articles - Le Président du tribunal de commerce d'Anvers(1) a ordonné la cessation d'une publicité comparative illicite suggérant que l'entreprise offre un prix globalement plus avantageux, tant par rapport au marché dans son ensemble que par rapport à un concurrent spécifique. La critique par le concurrent de cette pratique publicitaire à l'égard d'un fournisseur commun est considérée comme du badinage et a également dû être abandonnée.

Read more