UAB TIKROJI TURTO KAINA DIVORCE CENTRE FINED BY THE COMPETITION COUNCIL FOR MISLEADING ADVERTISING

In its meeting the Competition Council passed the decision concerning the compliance with the requirements of Article 5 of the Law on Advertising of the advertising statements proliferated by of UAB Tikroji turto kaina Divorce centre regarding the services provided by advocates. Upon the conclusion of the infringements of the Law on Advertising and the Law on Prohibition of Unfair Business-to-Consumer Commercial Practices, UAB Tikroji turto kaina Divorce centre was fined at LTL 11.500, and obligated to immediately cease the use of the misleading advertising – using the statements recognised by the CC as constituting misleading advertising where such acts were still continued. The Competition Council acknowledged as misleading the following statements published and proliferated in flyers and in the press by UAB Tikroji turto kaina Divorce centre: “divorce advocate services”, “judicial representation”, best divorce lawyers”, “services of best divorce advocates”, “professional representation in court”’, “highly qualified and inexpensive all range advocate services”, “divorce centre – advocates”, “world divorce champions – divorce in three days“, “immediate award of child support from debtors”.

The Competition Council conducted the investigation on the basis of the information provided by the Lithuanian Bar Association and the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania.

UAB Tikroji turto kaina Divorce centre is a provider of legal services. The advertising statements published by the company about the divorce services offered by the advocates are directly related to the activities that the company is engaged in and are designed to promote the services of the company. The Law on Prohibition of Unfair Business-to-Consumer Commercial Practices stipulates that commercial practices shall in all cases be considered misleading if they are manifested as a false claiming that a commercial operator (including its commercial practices) has been granted a licence (authorisation). UAB Tikroji turto kaina Divorce centre was not able to produce any evidence that the company is authorised to provide the services it has been advertising – i.e., provide advocacy services and, accordingly, publish the respective advertising statements.  The Competition Council was informed by the Lithuanian Bar Association that is the authority including the persons into the list of practitioner advocates, UAB Tikroji turto kaina Divorce centre had not been issued the licence to engage in advocacy activity.

According to the requirements of the Law on Advertising the provider of advertising is obligated to substantiate the accuracy of its advertising statements; UAB Tikroji turto kaina Divorce centre, however, was not able to provide any evidence substantiating the accuracy of the advertising statements in question.

When establishing the amount of the fine the Competition Council was guided by the consideration that the advertising proliferated by UAB Tikroji turto kaina Divorce centre was in essence misleading advertising that could mislead the users of advertising and affect their economic behaviour. Also due account was taken of a significantly long duration of the infringement and other circumstances aggravating the liability – the company was impeding the Competition Council in the investigation by refusing to provide the required information and was continuing the infringement by further publishing the misleading advertising.