GDPR

Processing of your personal data

This website might use cookies or other personal data for the purposes of the functioning of the website. Some of these cookies are mandatory, while the other ones only help us to improve your browsing experience and get information on how the website is used.

Privacy message

THE TELEVISION AND INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER SANCTIONED FOR MISLEADING ADVERTISING

15 10 2009

Acting in accordance with the provisions of the Law on Advertising and the Law on Prohibition of Unfair Business-to-Consumer Commercial Practices the Competition Council recognised the advertising statements proliferated by UAB Roventa as misleading and sanctioned the company to a fine of LTL 3,000.

The statements advertising the cable television services by UAB Roventa in its Internet website “As much as three months for free“, “For the entire contract term cable TV and Internet for zero litas and zero cents“, and “Rates of UAB Roventa lowest in Mažeikiai“ were recognised to constitute items of misleading advertising, and the company was obligated to cease the use of the misleading advertising, i.e., stop using the advertising statements that had been recognised as misleading where the actions were still continued.

The investigation was started on the basis of the request of L. Prušinskas personal enterprise Kompiuterinis langas and a complaint filed by a consumer. UAB Roventa a company operating in Mažeikiai is a TV and internet services provider. The advertising statements proliferated by the company were directly related to the activities of the company and were aimed at promoting the use of the services it provided.

Having assessed the statement „As much as three months free“ a consumer can rightfully expect that he will be able to use the cable TV services at no charge for three months. However, the investigation showed that in order to be able to use the service the consumer was forced to conclude a term service contract with the company. A consumer who has signed the service contract for one year, was allowed to use the services for one month without being charged a subscriber‘s fee, and, accordingly, for a two years‘ contract the consumer could use the service for two months, and three months in exchange for a three years‘ service contract. The cable television service monthly fee is LTL 23 (or LTL 16 at discounted rate), and the service for legal persons – LTL 29). Therefore, a consumer seeking to take advantage of the promoted cable TV service at no charge had to incur some additional costs that were not necessary or indispensable expenses.

Also the investigation established that the advertising statement claiming “For the entire contract term cable TV and Internet for zero litas and zero cents“ aimed at promoting consumers to contract the services provided by the company rightfully expecting to use the service at no charge. However, upon applying to the Customer service department of UAB Roventa a client would be introduced to some additional conditions which he could not expect judging by the contents of the advertising statement. The employees of the company would explain that all non-indebted subscribers to the service plan Taupyklė offered by UAB Roventa, residents of the multi-apartment houses, without concluding any term contracts could be released from one month subscriber’s fee provided they find and bring to the company one new subscriber. Thus the possibility to be released from the payment as advertised in the statement was subjected to the number of new subscribers that an existent subscriber of UAB Roventa, using the Taupyklė plan could find.

Having familiarised himself with the advertising statement also proliferated by UAB Roventa claiming that the fee of the company was the lowest in Mažeikiai town the advertising consumer could rightfully expect to be offered the services at rates much lower than offered by other companies. It is highly probable that provided the consumer was aware of the truthful information, i.e., that the services of UAB Roventa were not, or not in all cases cheaper than those offered by its competitors, could choose another company as the service provider.

When establishing the amount of the fine the Competition Council duly considered that the company acknowledged to have committed the infringement which is considered an alleviating circumstance.

Competition Council Spokesperson
Last updated: 26 06 2016