UNFAIR Commercial: Extra Case questions (exam practise) Flashcards
(7 cards)
Q:
A company advertises “Free smartwatch with every phone,” but when customers check out, they’re charged €20 for “processing and delivery.”
👉 Is this legal under the directive?
Issue: Misleading pricing – is the product really free?
Rule: Article 6 (misleading action) and Annex I, point 20 (falsely claiming something is free).
Application: The smartwatch is not truly free if the customer must pay a hidden cost.
Conclusion: This is a misleading commercial practice and is banned.
A door-to-door salesman tells an elderly woman she must buy his vacuum cleaner because she signed a “pre-order” form earlier (which she didn’t understand).
👉 Is this an unfair commercial practice?
Issue: Aggressive pressure on a vulnerable consumer.
Rule: Article 8 (aggressive practices), Article 9(c) (exploiting specific misfortune or vulnerability).
Application: Elderly people may not fully understand or resist pressure, making this coercive.
Conclusion: This is an aggressive practice and is prohibited.
An online store lists a phone for €299 in a social media ad. When users click to buy, the final price is €349 due to hidden “setup costs.”
👉 Legal or not?
Issue: Misleading omission of full price.
Rule: Article 7(4)(c) – price including taxes and fees must be clear in an invitation to purchase.
Application: Hiding fees misleads the buyer and affects their decision.
Conclusion: This is a misleading omission, and it’s banned under the directive.
A game app notifies children: “Ask your parents to buy this power-up — it’s only €1!”
👉 Is this allowed?
Issue: Direct appeal to children to buy or ask adults to buy.
Rule: Annex I, point 28 – direct exhortation to children is always banned.
Application: Encouraging kids to pressure adults is unfair and manipulative.
Conclusion: This practice is always unfair and illegal under Annex I.
A shop puts a “TrustMark Certified” logo on its site, even though it never applied for or received that certification.
👉 Can they do that?
Issue: False endorsement.
Rule: Article 6(1)(c) and Annex I, point 2 & 4 – claiming approval or trust marks without permission.
Application: Falsely using a trust logo gives consumers a misleading sense of security.
Conclusion: This is a misleading action and is clearly banned.
A fitness influencer with over 1 million followers posts on Instagram:
“This detox tea changed my life! I lost 5 kg in one week, no workouts needed. I love it — and you will too. Link in bio 💚 #ad”
However:
She was paid by the tea company, but only mentions “#ad” in small grey font at the bottom.
There is no scientific evidence for the claims.
The product doesn’t actually lead to weight loss without diet or exercise.
👉 Is this an unfair commercial practice?
Issue: There are multiple potential unfair practices:
Misleading health claim
Unclear advertising disclosure
False impression of effectiveness
Rules:
Article 6(1)(a, b, g): False/misleading claims about product benefits and risks.
Article 7(2): Hiding the commercial intent of the communication.
Annex I, point 17: Claiming a product cures or significantly improves health issues without evidence.
Application:
The influencer makes a health claim that isn’t backed by science = misleading.
The commercial relationship is not made clearly visible to the average consumer = hidden intent.
The promise of “no workouts needed” may mislead vulnerable consumers, like teens.
Conclusion:
This case involves misleading actions, omissions, and potentially unlawful health claims. It violates the Directive and is an unfair commercial practice on multiple grounds.
A car dealership sends out emails saying:
“Congratulations! You’ve been selected as our lucky winner of a free weekend getaway — just visit our showroom and collect your prize!”
When the consumer arrives:
Staff say the prize is only available after doing a test drive and finance consultation.
The “prize” turns out to be a discount voucher for a local hotel (with tons of restrictions).
Sales staff keep insisting the consumer consider a leasing deal, despite her saying she’s not interested.
👉 What unfair commercial practices might apply?
Issue: The practice appears to:
Mislead about a prize or giveaway
Create pressure to enter a commercial transaction
Bait the consumer into the shop under false pretenses
Rules:
Annex I, point 31: Claiming the consumer has won a prize, when either there’s no prize or costs/conditions apply.
Annex I, point 6: Bait & switch – promoting something just to lure consumers into buying something else.
Article 8 + 9(a, d): Aggressive behaviour – repeated pressure and barriers to leaving or refusing.
Application:
The email gave the impression of a clear prize, with no conditions — that’s misleading.
Requiring a test drive + financial talk = hidden conditions.
Continuous pressure to buy despite disinterest = aggressive conduct.
Conclusion:
The dealership’s behaviour is both misleading and aggressive. Multiple unfair practices apply here, especially from Annex I, and the actions are clearly prohibited under the directive.
