|
Wir sind für unsere Arbeit auf Spenden angewiesen. Bitte beteiligen Sie sich, wenn Sie diese Seiten nützlich fanden |
| EASA
- cross border complaints Novachannel, TVV, ECG, Construct Data, Eucodata |
| NEWS |
November 2006 Bundesgerichtshof: Telefonwerbung gegenüber Gewerbetreibenden verboten - 20.11.2006 Pressebericht |
| zur Übersichtseite der EASA European Advertising Standards Alliance - CBC Reports |
| Report No. 40– January to April 2008 |
1738 EU Business Services Ltd
Complaint (alleged misleading) to the UK SRO, ASA, from a UK company, concerning a direct mailing from the Netherlands featuring a business guide. The mailing invited the company to confirm information about the company which the advertiser already held. However, signing the form constituted an order for an advertisement in the guide. The complainant maintained that this was not made sufficiently clear in the advertisement and consequently considered it to be misleading. ASA transferred the complaint to the Dutch SRO, SRC, under the cross-border procedure. Upon investigation, it emerged that the advertiser had only a PO Box in the Netherlands and was in fact based in the West Indies. Postal authorities in the Netherlands are currently investigating if the PO Box should be closed for abuse.
Complaint not pursued, case closed. |
1834 - 1835 - 1836 - 1842 - 1844 - 1845 - 1856
Construct Data Publishers
Complaints (misleading) to EASA, from 7 companies in Israel concerning a direct mailing from Austria featuring a business guide. The mailing invited the recipient to confirm information already held about the company but failed to make it clear that signing the form automatically constituted an order for an advertisement in the guide. The complainants considered the advertisement to be misleading. EASA transferred the complaint to the Austrian SRO, OWR, under the cross-border procedure. OWR confirmed that this advertiser had persistently disregarded the OWR’s decisions against its advertising, and the case had therefore been transferred to the appropriate statutory authorities, who had taken enforcement action for mailings within the EU and EEA, but whose remit did not extend to countries outside these areas.
Complaints transferred to appropriate authorities. Case closed. |
| Report No. 39–April to August 2007 |
1778 -1779-1780-1781-1782-1783-1788-1789-1790-1792-1800-1801-1802-1796
Construct Data Publishers
14 complaints (misleading) to EASA, from 14 companies - 11 in Israel, 2 in Poland, one in Belgium - concerning a direct mailing from Austria featuring a business guide. The mailing invited the recipient company to confirm information about it by signing and returning a form. However, signing the form automatically ordered an advertisement in the guide, and this fact was not made sufficiently clear. Respondents were subsequently pursued for payment. The complainants found the advertisement to be misleading. EASA transferred the complaint to the Austrian SRO, OWR, under the cross-border procedure. OWR noted that this advertiser had persistently disregarded decisions against its advertising by the OWR, and therefore transferred the case to the appropriate authorities.
Complaints transferred to appropriate authorities. Case closed. |
1786-1795
European City Guide
Complaints (Misleading) received from two UK companies concerning a direct mailing from a Spanish company. The advertiser offered, for a fee, to place a subscriber’s company information in a 'European City guide' and invited the recipient to check the details already printed on the form, and then to sign the response. The complainants believed that the mailing was misleading because even when a response indicated no interest, the advertiser had treated it as an order. The complainant was subsequently asked for payment. Spanish regional competition authorities are already investigating the case.
Case transferred to appropriate authorities, case closed. |
1793-1794
Nova Channel
Complaints (Misleading) to the EASA, from two French companies concerning a direct mailing from Switzerland featuring a business directory. The advertiser offered to place subscribers’ company information in a business directory and invited the company to verify the company details already printed on the form, and then to sign the response. The complainant believed that the mailing was misleading because it was not made clear that returning the signed form automatically constituted an order. The complainant had subsequently been pursued for payment. EASA informed the complainant that the Cantonal and Federal authorities in Switzerland has opened proceedings against this advertiser.
Complaint transferred to appropriate authority. Case closed. |
| Report No. 38– January to March 2007 |
1739 – 1740 – 1742 – 1743 – 1744 – 1746 – 1747 – 1748 – 1749 – 1750 – 1751 – 1752 – 1753 – 1754 – 1755 – 1756 – 1762 – 1763 – 1764 – 1765 – 1766 – 1767 – 1768 – 1770 – 1771 – 1772 – 1773 – 1775 Construct Data Publishers
27 complaints (misleading) to EASA, from 27 companies - 19 in Israel, 6 in Sweden, one in Finland and one in South Africa - concerning a direct mailing from Austria featuring a business guide. The mailing invited the recipient company to confirm information about it by signing and returning a form. However, signing the form automatically ordered an advertisement in the guide, and this fact was not made sufficiently clear. Respondents were subsequently pursued for payment. The complainants found the advertisement to be misleading. EASA transferred the complaint to the Austrian SRO, OWR, under the cross-border procedure. OWR noted that this advertiser had persistently disregarded decisions against its advertising by the OWR, and therefore transferred the case to the appropriate authorities.
Complaints transferred to appropriate authorities. Case closed. |
| Report No. 37– August to December 2006 |
1721 Nova Channel AG
Complaint (Misleading) to the EASA, from a Polish company concerning a direct mailing from Switzerland featuring a business directory. The advertiser offered to place subscribers’ company information in a business directory and invited the company to verify the company details already printed on the form, and then to sign the response. The complainant believed that the mailing was misleading because it was not made clear that returning the signed form automatically constituted an order. The complainant had subsequently been chased for payment. EASA informed the complainant that the Cantonal and Federal authorities in Switzerland has opened proceedings against this advertiser.
Complaint transferred to appropriate authority. Case closed.
1687- 1688 – 1689 1691 1692 1693 16941695 1696 1697 1698 1699 1703, 1704 1705 1706 1714 1715 1716 1717, 1718, 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 1728 1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1734 1741 Construct Data Publishers
Complaints (misleading) to EASA, from 34 companies in Sweden (11), Ireland (1), France (1) and Israel (21) concerning a direct mailing from Austria featuring a business guide. The mailing invited the recipient to confirm information already held about the company but failed to make it clear that signing the form automatically constituted an order for an advertisement in the guide. The complainants considered the advertisement to be misleading. EASA transferred the complaint to the Austrian SRO, OWR, under the cross-border procedure. OWR noted that the advertiser had persistently disregarded the OWR’s decisions against its advertising, and therefore transferred the case to the appropriate authorities.
Complaints transferred to appropriate authorities. Case closed. |
| Report No. 36– January to July 2006 |
1629 Nova Channel AG
Complaint (Misleading) to the Canadian SRO, ASC, from a Canadian company concerning a direct mailing from Switzerland featuring a business directory. The advertiser offered to place subscribers’ company information in a business directory and invited the company to verify the company details already printed on the form, and then to sign the response. The complainant believed that the mailing was misleading because it was not clear that returning the signed form with approval of the company details automatically constituted an order. The complainant was consequently being asked for payment. EASA transferred the complaint to the Swiss SRO, under the cross-border procedure. As the case had already been transferred to the authorities,the CSL informed the complainant that the Cantonal Police of Lucerne had opened proceedings.
Complaint transferred to appropriate authority. Case closed.
|
1643 – 1644 - 1653 European City Guide
Complaints (Misleading) received from one Irish and two UK companies concerning a direct mailing from a Spanish company. The advertiser offered, for a fee, to place a subscriber’s company information in a 'European City guide' and invited the recipient to rectify details already printed on the form, and then to sign the response. The complainants believed that the mailing was misleading because even when a response indicated no interest, the advertiser had treated it an order. The complainant was consequently being asked for payment. Spanish regional competition authorities are already investigating the case.
Case transferred to appropriate authority. Case closed. |
1648 United Media
Complaint (misleading) to the UK SRO, ASA, from a UK consumer, concerning a direct mailing from the Czech Republic featuring an international business and trade database on internet and on CD ROM. The complainant considered the advertisement misleading since it was presented as an invoice and targeted at businesses, apparently in the hope that they would pay. ASA referred the case to the Czech SRO, CRPR. The CRPR had previously received complaints about this advertisement, in the form of a mailing which had been transferred and reviewed by the District Trade License Office (DTLO). The DTLO did not uphold the previous complaint, as the mailing explicitly stated that it is an offer.
Complaint not upheld. Case closed. |
1655 to 1658 / 1660 to 1673 / 1675 to 1679 / 1682 / 1683 / 1687 to 1689 Construct Data Publishers
Complaints (misleading) to EASA, from 11 companies in Israel, 10 in Sweden, and companies in Hungary, Finland, Ireland, the UK, the USA, a Switzerland, Hong Kong and Australia concerning a direct mailing from Austria featuring a business guide. The mailing invited the recipient company to confirm information about it. However, signing the form automatically ordered an advertisement in the guide, and this fact was not made sufficiently clear. The complainants found the advertisement to be misleading. EASA transferred the complaint to the Austrian SRO, OWR, under the cross-border procedure. OWR noted that the advertiser had persistently disregarded decisions against its advertising by the OWR, and therefore transferred the case to the appropriate authorities.
Complaints transferred to appropriate authority. Case closed. |
Report No. 35– September to December 2005 |
1588 to 1594 Construct Data Publishers
Complaint (misleading) fromThai, British and Swedish companies concerning a direct mailing from Austria featuring a business guide. The mailing invited the company to confirm details which the guide already had about the company. However, it was not made clear that signing the form constituted an order for an advertisement in the guide. The companies found the advertisement to be misleading. EASA transferred the complaint to the Austrian SRO, OWR, under the cross-border procedure. OWR noted that this advertiser had persistently disregarded decisions against its advertising by the OWR, and therefore transferred the case to the appropriate authorities. Complaints transferred to appropriate authorities, cases closed. |
1595 to 1601Nova Channel AG
Complaints (misleading) from companies in Estonia, USA, UK, South Africa and Israel, concerning a direct mailing from Switzerland featuring a business directory. The mailing invited the company to confirm details which the guide already had about the company. However, it was not made clear that signing the form constituted an order for an advertisement in the guide. The companies found the advertisement to be misleading. EASA transferred the complaints to the Swiss SRO, under the cross-border procedure. The CSL informed the complainants that the Cantonal Police of Lucerne had opened proceedings. Cases closed. |
1602 Eucodata
Complaint (misleading) to EASA, from a Czech company, concerning a direct mailing from Switzerland featuring a business guide. The mailing invited the company to confirm details which the guide already had about the company. However, it was not made clear that signing the form constituted an order for an advertisement in the guide. The company considered the advertisement misleading. The complaint had also been sent to the Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs and EASA therefore decided that no further action was required. Complaint already sent to appropriate authorities, case closed. |
Report No. 34 – May to August 2005 |
1579-80 Nova Channel AG
Complaint (misleading) from UK and Finnish companies to EASA, and the Finnish SRO, LTL,concerning a direct mailing from Switzerland featuring a business directory. The advertisement offered to place company information in a business directory and invited the recipient to verify the company details already printed on the form, and then to sign the response. The complainants believed that the mailing was misleading because it was not clearly stated that returning the signed form with approval of the company details, automatically placed an order. The complainants were consequently asked for payment. EASA transferred the complaint to the Swiss SRO, under the cross-border procedure. The CSL informed the complainants that the Cantonal Police of Lucerne had opened an investigation of the advertiser’s activities, and consequently CSL would not itself pursue the case. Complaints transferred to appropriate authority, case closed. |
1582 European City Guide
Complaint (misleading) to the EASA, from a UK company concerning a direct mailing from Spain featuring a business directory. The mailing invited recipients to confirm their company information printed on the form. However, by signing the form, the companies automatically ordered an advertisement in the Directory on Line. The complainants considered that the advertisement did not make it sufficiently clear that the signature constituted an order, and hence found it misleading. EASA transferred the complaint to the Spanish SRO, Autocontrol, under the cross-border procedure. Autocontrol noted that this advertiser continued to disregard the decisions of the Spanish court against its misleading advertising, and transferred the case to the court in Valencia. Case transferred to appropriate authority, case closed. |
Report No. 33 – January to April 2005 |
1477-88, 1495-1540 Construct Data Publishers
Complaints (misleading) to EASA, from Belgian, Czech, British, Greek, Dutch, Israeli and US companies, concerning a direct mailing from Austria featuring a business guide. The mailing invited recipients to confirm their company information printed on the form. However, by signing the form, the companies automatically ordered an advertisement in the guide. The complainants considered that the advertisement did not make it sufficiently clear that the signature constituted an order, and hence found it misleading. EASA transferred the complaints to the Austrian SRO, OWR, under the cross-border procedure. OWR noted that the advertiser had persistently disregarded previous decisions against its advertising by the OWR, and therefore transferred the case to the appropriate authorities. Complaint transferred to appropriate authorities, case closed. |
Report No. 32 – September to December 2004 |
995, 1020, 1317, 1319-20, 1329-31 Nova Channel AG
Complaints (misleading) from companies in the UK, France, Poland and the USA concerning a direct mailing from Switzerland, offering to place subscribers’ company information in a business directory and inviting the company to verify the details already printed on the form, and then to sign the response. The complainant believed that the mailing was misleading because it was not clear that returning the signed form with approval of the company details automatically constituted an order. The complainants were subsequently asked for payment. The cases were transferred to the CSL (CH), under the cross-border procedure. The CSL discovered that the police in Lucerne had already opened an investigations into the advertiser’s activities, and the case was therefore closed by the SRO. Case already under investigation by authorities, case closed. |
1332-1374, 1398, 1415-73 Construct Data Publishers
Complaints (misleading) from companies in the UK, Netherlands, Israel, France and Italy, concerning a direct mailing from Austria featuring a business guide. The mailing invited the companies to confirm the information for a free entry in the business directory. However, the complainants maintained that it was not sufficiently clear that the form had to be returned unsigned in order to avoid placing an order, for which the complainant was later invoiced. The cases were transferred to the OWR (A), under the cross-border procedure. OWR transferred the complaints to the appropriate authority, since the advertiser had persistently disregarded previous rulings by the OWR against its advertising. Complaint transferred to appropriate authorities, case closed. |
1400, 1401, 1404, 1405, 1412, 1413 European City Guide
Complaints (misleading) to the ASAI (IRL), from several Irish companies concerning a direct mailing from Spain featuring a business directory. The mailing invited the companies to confirm information for a free entry in the business directory. However, the complainants considered that it was made insufficiently clear that the form had to be returned unsigned in order to avoid placing an order, for which the complainants were later invoiced. ASAI transferred the complaints to Autocontrol (E), under the cross-border procedure. Autocontrol noted that the advertiser continued to ignore the decision of the Spanish court against its misleading practices, and transferred the cases to the judicial authorities in Valencia. Case transferred to appropriate authority, case closed. |
Report No. 31 – July to September 2004 |
1006 Tele Verzeichnis Verlag GmbH
Complaint (misleading) to the ASAI, Ireland, from an Irish company concerning a business directory. The complainant had completed the company details on the form for the directory, and returned it signed. The company later received an invoice, and complained that the form was misleading as it was not sufficiently clear that it constituted an order. ASAI transferred the case to the German SRO for misleadingness, ZEN, under the cross-border procedure. ZEN concluded that the mailing was not misleading, as it was clearly stated on the form that signing it constituted an order. Complaint not upheld, case closed. |
1019, 1047, 1058, 1285, 1326 Construct Data Publishers
Complaints (misleading) directly to EASA, from companies in the UK, Spain, China, Japan, the Netherlands, France and Israel, concerning a direct mailing from Austria featuring a business guide. The mailing stated that recipients’ company information was to be published in a business directory and invited them to verify the details already printed on the form, and then to sign and return the form. The complainants believed that the mailing was misleading because it failed to make clear that returning the signed form automatically constituted an order. EASA transferred the complaint to the Austrian SRO, OWR, under the cross-border procedure. OWR noted that the advertiser had persistently disregarded previous OWR decisions against its advertising and therefore transferred the case to the appropriate authorities. Complaint transferred to appropriate authorities, case closed. |
1228, 1303, 1315-16 Nova Channel AG
Complaints (misleading) to ASAI, Ireland and to EASA from companies in Ireland, Australia and the USA, concerning a direct mailing from Switzerland. The advertiser offered, for a fee, to place subscribing company information in a business directory and invited the consumer to verify the company details already printed on the form, and return the signed response. The complainants believed that the mailing was misleading because it was not clearly marked that by returning the signed form with approval of the company details, it automatically placed an order. The complaints were transferred to the Swiss SRO, CSL, according to the cross-border procedure. CSL considered that the mailing made it sufficiently clear that by signing the form, it constituted an order, and did not uphold the complaint. Complaint not upheld, case closed.
|
1046 European City Guide
Complaint (misleading) to EASA, from a UK company concerning a direct mailing from a Spanish company featuring a catalogue service. The advertiser offered to place subscribers company information in a 'European City Guide' and invited the company to verify the company details already printed on the form, and then to sign the response if they wanted to subscribe to the catalogue. The company had not signed the form, but had nevertheless been invoiced by European City Guide. The complainant alleged that the advertiser had forged the signature on the form. EASA transferred the complaint to the Spanish SRO, Autocontrol, under the cross-border procedure. A Catalan court had previously fined this advertiser for misleading advertising. In view of evidence that the advertiser continued to breach Spanish law, Autocontrol decided to transfer the case to the judicial authorities. Case transferred to appropriate authority, case closed. |
Report No. 30 – January to April 2004 |
1002 Intercable Verlag
Complaint (misleading) to the Italian SRO, IAP, from an Italian consumer, concerning a direct mailing from Switzerland featuring an internet database of European companies. The mailing stated that the complainant’s company information was to be published in an internet business database and invited it to verify the details already printed on the form, and then to sign and return it. The complainant believed that the mailing was misleading because it did not make sufficiently clear that returning the signed form automatically constituted an order. The complainant was subsequently invoiced for payment. IAP transferred the complaint to the Swiss SRO, CSL, according to the cross-border procedure. The CSL considered that the form clearly stated that by signing the form, an order would be automatically placed, and therefore found that there was not sufficient evidence to decide that the advertisement was misleading. Complaint not upheld, case closed. |
Report No. 29 – September to December 2003 |
0985 Eucodata
Complaint (misleading) to the Spanish SRO, Autocontrol, from a Spanish company, concerning a direct mailing from Switzerland featuring a business guide. The mailing invited the company to confirm details which the guide already had about the company. However, by signing the form, the company automatically booked an advertisement in the guide, without being sufficiently informed of this. The company considered the advertisement to be misleading. Autocontrol considered the advertisement to be in breach of art. 14 (misleading) of the Spanish Code of Advertising Practice. The complaint was transferred to the Swiss SRO, CSL. CSL did not uphold the complaint. Complaint not upheld, case closed. |
1007 Construct Data Publishers
Complaint (misleading) to EASA, from a US company, concerning a direct mailing from Austria featuring a business guide. The mailing stated that recipients’ company information was to be published in a business directory and invited them to verify the details already printed on the form, and then to sign and return the form. The complainants believed that the mailing was misleading because it failed to make clear that returning the signed form automatically constituted an order. EASA transferred the complaint to the Austrian SRO, OWR, under the cross-border procedure. OWR upheld the complaint, and requested the advertiser to refrain from using the same mailing in the future. Complaint upheld, case closed. |
1059-1215 European City Guide
Complaints (misleading) to European SROs from companies across Europe, concerning a direct mailing from the Spanish company European City Guide, featuring a business directory. The mailing stated that recipients' company information was to be published in a 'European City Guide' and invited them to verify the details already printed on the form, and then to sign and return it. The complainants believed that the mailing was misleading because it failed to make clear that returning the signed form automatically constituted an order. The complainants were subsequently invoiced for payment. The complaints were transferred to the Spanish SRO, Autocontrol. European City Guide had previously attracted a significant number of complaints, and had been fined by a Catalan court for misleading advertising. Autocontrol therefore transferred the complaints automatically to the Catalan Directorate-General for Consumer Affairs, and the Catalan court. Complaint transferred to appropriate authority, case closed. |
Report No. 28 – May to August 2003
|
937, 943, 986 Construct Data Publishers
Complaint (misleading) to the UK SRO, ASA, from a UK company, concerning a direct mailing from Austria featuring an exhibition guide, ‘The Exhibitors Fair Guide’. The mailing stated that recipients' company information was to be published in the Fair Guide and invited them to verify the details already printed on the form, and then to sign and return the form. The complainant believed that the mailing was misleading because it failed to make clear that returning the signed form automatically constituted an order. The complainant was subsequently invoiced for payment. The ASA transferred the complaint to the Austrian SRO, OWR, under the cross-border procedure. OWR upheld the complaint, and instructed the advertiser not to use the mailing again. A press release was sent to all relevant Austrian newspapers. Complaint upheld, case closed. |
Report No. 27 – January to April 2003 |
837 Nova Channel AG
Complaint (misleading) received by European Advertising Standards Alliance, EASA, from an Italian company concerning a direct mailing from a Swiss company. The advertiser offered, for a fee, to place subscribers’ company information in a business directory and invited the company to verify the company details already printed on the form, and then to sign the response. The complainant believed that the mailing was misleading because it did not establish clearly that by returning the signed form with confirmation of the company details, constituted an order. The complainant had consequently been invoiced. EASA forwarded the complaint to the Swiss SRO, CSL, under the cross-border procedure. Meanwhile, an agreement was reached between the advertiser and the complainant. Complaint not pursued, case closed |
928, 954 European City Guide
Complaints (misleading) to EASA from a Finnish and Cypriot company, concerning a direct mailing from the Spanish company European City Guide, featuring a business directory. The mailing stated that recipients' company information was to be published in a 'European City Guide' and invited them to verify the details already printed on the form, and then to sign and return the form. The complainants believed that the mailing was misleading because it failed to make clear that returning the signed form automatically constituted an order. The complainants were subsequently invoiced for payment. The SROs referred the complaints to the Spanish SRO, Autocontrol. European City Guide had previously attracted a significant number of complaints, and had been fined by a Catalan court for misleading advertising. Autocontrol therefore referred the complaint directly to the Catalan Directorate-General for Consumer Affairs, which passed them to the Catalan court. In November 2002 the Court found the advertiser to be guilty of misleading advertising, and imposed a fine of € 27 000. EASA subsequently released a new Euro Ad Alert warning about the activities of this advertiser. Autocontrol transferred the cases to the Catalan Authorities. Complaint transferred to appropriate authority, case closed. |
Report No. 26 – September to December 2002 |
801, 803, 830, 835-36, 864-925 European City Guide
Complaints (misleading) to several European SROs, from companies concerning a direct mailing from the Spanish company European City Guide, featuring a business directory. The mailing stated that recipients' company information was to be published in a 'European City Guide' and invited them to verify the details already printed on the form, and then to sign and return the form. The complainants believed that the mailing was misleading because it failed to make clear that returning the signed form automatically constituted an order. The complainants were subsequently invoiced for payment. The SROs referred the complaints to the Spanish SRO, Autocontrol. European City Guide had previously been the subject of a significant number of complaints, and had also been fined by a Catalan court for misleading advertising. . Autocontrol therefore referred the complaints directly to the Catalan Directorate-General for Consumer Affairs, which passed them to the Catalan court. The Court again found the advertiser to be guilty of misleading advertising, and imposed a fine of € 27 000. EASA released a new Euro Ad Alert warning about the activities of this advertiser. Complaint transferred to appropriate authority; Euro Ad Alert issued. Case closed. |
Report No. 19 - November 2000 |
355 European City Guide (E):
Objection received from the ASA (UK), from an UK consumer to a direct mailing from Spain. The ad was for a business directory. The mailing offered the recipient the opportunity to be placed in a European City guide. The complainant objected that the mailing was misleading because it gave the impression that the enclosed form should be completed even if no order was being placed. The complainant discovered that the signing of the form committed the recipient to placing an order. ASA transferred the complaint to the Spanish AAP. The Spanish AAP decided that as this case concerned alleged contractual fraud, the complaint should be transferred to the appropriate Spanish authorities. Case transferred to the appropriate authorities. |
357,365 European City Guide (E):
Objections received from the BVP (F) from French consumers to a direct mailing from Spain. The ad was for a business directory. The mailing offered the recipient the opportunity to be placed in a European City guide. The complainants objected that the mailing was misleading because it gave the impression that form should be completed even if no order was being placed. The complainants discovered that the signing of the form committed the recipient to placing an order. BVP referred the complaints to the Spanish AAP. The Spanish AAP decided that as this case concerned alleged contractual fraud, the complaints were transferred to the appropriate Spanish authorities. Case transferred to the appropriate authorities. |
Report No. 18 - February 2000 |
266 EUROPEAN CITY GUIDE (E):
Objection received by the ASAI (IRL), from an Irish consumer, to a direct mailing from Spain. The ad took the form of an invoice that offered the recipient the opportunity of inclusion in a European city guide. The complainant believed that the mailing was misleading because it gave the impression that the directory entries were free, and that it did not make clear that by signing and returning the form, the recipient would be committed to paying for an entry in the guide. ASAI referred the complaint to the AAP (E).
AAP informed ASAI that its Advertising Jury considered the ad to go beyond the sphere of advertising ethics, in that the objective of the brochure was not only to advertise a product, but also that it involved a specific contractual offer. The case therefore appeared to be one of contractual fraud. AAP referred the case to the Catalonian Director-General for Consumer Affairs, the competent authority in the Catalonian administration, as well as to the Prosecutor's Office of the High Court of Catalonia to open an investigation into a possible criminal case against the advertiser. COMPLAINT TRANSFERRED TO APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES. |
Report No. 16 - May 1999 |
262 EUROPEAN CITY GUIDE (E):
Complaint (Misleading) received from a UK consumer concerning a direct mailing from a Spanish company. The advertiser offered, for a fee, to place a subscribers company information in a 'European City guide' and invited the consumer to rectify details already printed on the form, and then to sign the response. The complainant believed that the mailing was misleading because even by sending a response indicating no interest, the advertiser had considered it an order. The complainant was consequently being chased for payment. ASA (UK) adjudicated on this complaint as they believed that it was a domestic case, but subsequently learned that the mailing had been sent from a Spanish advertiser. The ASA considered that the mailing was likely to give the impression that the costs for entries would not necessarily be incurred if the form was signed and returned. The ASA suggested that the advertiser amend the mailing to include clear and prominent statements. COMPLAINT UPHELD. CASE CLOSED. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JURISTISCH |
|
EUROPAPARLAMENT UND ADRESSBUCHSCHWINDEL |
|
IN EIGENER SACHE |
|
|
|
