UAB TEISINGUMAS FINED FOR MISLEADING ADVERTISING

The Competition Council recognised as misleading the advertising statements published by UAB Teisingumas in its advertising leaflets and the press. In its statements the company claimed – “Teisingumas – attorney services”, “Award and increase of child support”, “Expedient marriage dissolution”, “Division of property paternity establishment”, “Establishment of the child’s place of residence”, “The cheapest and most expedient divorce”.  For the infringement of Article 5 of the Law on Advertising and the Law on Prohibition of Unfair Business-to-Consumers Commercial Practices” UAB Teisingumas was fined by the Competition Council to LTL 2,800. The company was also obligated to cease the use of misleading claims, i.e., terminate the use of the advertising statements that have been recognised to constitute misleading advertising, where such actions were still continued.

UAB Teisingumas provides legal services and the advertising statements published by the company are directly related to the activities the company is engaged in and are designed to promote the services of the company.  Having familiarised himself with the advertising statements an average consumer may rightfully expect to receive the services claimed in the advertising statements.  However, in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania the execution of the actions referred to in the advertising statements is allocated exclusively to the jurisdiction of Lithuanian courts. The company Teisingumas does not perform any judicial functions, but rather intermediates for the purpose of provision of the legal services indicated in the statements.  Notably, an understanding of the issues referred to in the statements in all cases requires adequate competence, special knowledge and education.  Therefore, it is probable that a person with no legal knowledge having merely read the information contained in the advertising statements will understand the claims in their direct meaning, i.e., would expect that on arrival to the company’s office he will be provided the award of alimony, expedient marriage dissolution, property division and other required services.  On the contrary, by knowing the truthful information, i.e., that UAB Teisingumas does not provide the services it has been advertising, and is merely performing other functions related to the preparation of the judicial examination of the case, a client quite probably would have opted for a different behaviour and would not choose the services of the company.

UAB Teisingumas was not able to produce to the Competition Council any proof of the truthfulness of its advertising statements “Teisingumas – attorney services”, “Award and increase of child support”, “Expedient marriage dissolution”, “Division of property - paternity establishment”, “Establishment of the child’s place of residence”, “The cheapest and most expedient divorce” and acknowledged that handling of the issues is allocated exclusively to the competence of the courts.

The advertising statement “Teisingumas – attorney services” is also misleading as UAB Teisingumas does not provide any advocacy services.  Furthermore, according to the Law on Advocacy of the Republic of Lithuania it is only the Lithuanian Bar Association that has the exclusive right to include advocates into the list of advocate practitioners.  UAB Teisingumas only, having regard to the nature of the customer's case, searches advocates of appropriate category and specialisation using for that purpose the information made public by advocate firms. Thus, UAB Teisingumas provides the intermediary services for the purpose of identifying the appropriate advocates for its clients, rather than genuine advocate services.

When establishing the amount of the fine the Competition Council took into account the aggravating circumstances – UAB Teisingumas was obstructing the investigation and refused to provide the requested information and documents to the Competition Council.