Describes the conditions that must be met for comparative advertising to be permitted, including requirements for honesty, fair comparison, non-discrediting of competitors, and clarity regarding special offers.
Definition
Excerpt
1. Comparative advertising shall, as far as the comparison is concerned, be permitted when the following conditions are met:
a) it is not misleading according to this Section;
b) it compares goods or services meeting the same needs or intended for the same purpose;
c) it objectively compares one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative features of those goods and services, which may include price;
d) it does not create confusion in the market place between the advertiser and a competitor or between the advertiser's trademarks, trade names, other distinguishing marks, goods or services and those of a competitor;
e) it does not discredit or denigrate the trademarks, trade names, other distinguishing marks, goods, services, activities or circumstances of a competitor;
f) for products with designation of origin, it relates in each case to products with the same designation;
g) it does not take unfair advantage of the reputation of a trademark, trade name or other distinguishing marks of a competitor or of the designation of origin of competing products;
h) it does not present goods or services as imitations or replicas of goods or services bearing a protected trade mark or trade name.
2. The requirement for verifiability pursuant to paragraph 1(c), shall be deemed to be satisfied when the information used to illustrate the features of the goods or service advertised are capable of demonstration.
3. Any comparison referring to a special offer shall indicate in a clear and unequivocal way the date on which the offer ends or, where the special offer has not yet begun, the date of the start of the period during which the special price or other specific conditions shall apply and, where appropriate, that the special offer is subject to the availability of the goods and services.
Related cases
EasyJet was held liable for inadequate travel insurance policy transparency and creating obstacles for refunds during online ticket purchases. Consumers were not given essential information to make an informed choice regarding insurance policies.
Ryanair was held liable for not providing adequate information or giving misleading information to consumers acquiring the insurance policy covering the risk of travel cancellation.
The Italian Competition Authority found that "Edates" made it challenging for consumers to cancel subscriptions, sent frequent payment reminders, and made unauthorized credit card withdrawals, violating consumer rights.
Related deceptive patterns
The user finds it easy to sign up or subscribe, but when they want to cancel they find it very hard.
The user is unknowingly enrolled in a recurring subscription or payment plan without clear disclosure or their explicit consent.