Konkurencijos taryba found that the company Neste Lietuva infringed the Law on Advertising by spreading misleading advertising claims about Neste fuel. The company was fined EUR 8,688.
From May 1, after the amendments to the Law on Advertising have entered into force, the Lithuanian competition authority Konkurencijos taryba will transfer its functions relating to the supervision of misleading and comparative advertising to the State Consumer Rights Protection Authority (SCRPA).
Vilnius Regional Administrative Court (Court) upheld the decision of the Lithuanian competition authority Konkurencijos taryba whereby it imposed a fine on the company Pigu for misleading advertising.
Vilnius Regional Administrative Court (Court) rejected the complaints by NT partneriai and Karolinos turas and upheld the Lithuanian Competition Council’s decision, according to which the companies were fined for misleading advertising.
The firm Kauno būstai misled consumers by advertising guest houses as apartments. For the infringement of the Law on Advertising Kauno būstai received EUR 6,300 fine .
The Competition Council found that UAB Judira disseminated misleading advertising claims about the mat, head massage system and orthopedic pillow. For the infringement of the Law on Advertising the Council fined Judira EUR 1,230.
On October 2 the Competition Council found that UAB Karolinos turas and UAB NT partneriai misled consumers by advertising hotel premises as residential real estate. For the infringement of the Law on Advertising, the Council fined each of the companies EUR 8,688.
Chief Experts of Unfair Commercial Practices Investigation Division shared the Competition Council‘s experience on misleading and prohibited comparative advertising with the Albanian Consumer Protection Commission.
On February 28 the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania (Court) upheld the Competition Council’s decision of 10 December 2015 whereby UAB Mediashop (Company) was fined EUR 2 244 for misleading advertising.
Vilnius Regional Administrative Court (hereinafter – Court) rejected the appeal by UAB Pigu (hereinafter – Company) against the Competition Council‘s (hereinafter – Council) decision of 16 June 2016 whereby the Company disseminated misleading perfume and home appliance advertisements and thus breached Article 5 of the Law on Advertising.
The Competition Council (hereinafter – Council) found that UAB Nemuno vaistinė (hereinafter – Company) made false claims about 30 per cent cheaper products sold in the pharmacies of Camelia (hereinafter – Camelia ), and thus breached Article 5 of the Law on Advertising.