THE COMPETITION COUNCIL REPEATEDLY FINES TEZ TOUR FOR MISLEADING ADVERTISING

The Competition Council, having examined the findings of the investigation, had recognized the statements contained in the catalogue "Turkey. April-October, 2008" claiming “Hotel – in 52 km from the airport”. UAB Tez Tour was obligated to terminate the use of misleading advertising where the actions were further continued, i.e., to properly indicate the information on the distance of the hotel from the airport in the contracts for customers ordering a vacation package in "Kadikale Resort" in Turkey, Bodrum. For the use of misleading advertising the Competition Council imposed upon Tez Tour UAB a fine of LTL 40,300. When establishing the amount of the fine the competition authority duly considered the extended duration and the scope of the infringement; another factor considered an aggravating circumstance was that the company committed the infringement for the second time from the imposition of the fine provided for in the Law on Advertising.

When determining the circumstances related to the investigation that was initiated upon a receipt of consumers who were mislead the Competition Council established that customers were taken to the Dalaman airport located in about 230 km from the hotel, rather the Milo airport as advertised. The advertising statements published by UAB Tez Tour had omitted the information that was relevant to avoid misleading of the consumers – i.e., it did not indicate that passengers not in all cases will be taken to the airport located in 52 km from the hotel. The information on the distance from the airport to the hotel is material for persons acquiring a vacation package, especially for those travelling with children, as the advertising statement indicated the distance that is 5 times shorter than in reality, suggesting much more attractive conditions for the trip and the convenience while travelling to the selected hotel. The investigation produced a conclusion that the advertising of the type had mislead the consumers in their choice of a trip organiser and the hotel for the stay during the holiday and thus affected their economic behaviour. It is quite probable that should they had known the correct information and had a possibility to correctly assess the price-quality ratio, the consumers could have selected the services offered by other companies and a different hotel.

In the opinion of the Competition Council, both UAB Tez Tour as advertising provider and the trip organizer UAB Ventus Viaturus failed to produce any sufficient evidence proving that prior to the trip the tourists had been properly informed of the changes in the distances of the transfer from the airport to the hotel. Consumers are entitled to rely on the advertising rather than verify each advertising statement, or seek to collect any additional information as the Law on Advertising obligates the advertising provider to publish only truthful and complete information.