Work
06.September 2007 - 00:00
Misleading marketing in trade between economic operators
Each year, European entrepreneurs pay bills amounting to millions of euros arising from dishonest marketing. In Finland alone, thousands of businesses have fallen victim to misleading marketing in recent years. Claims arise by various dubious methods. False invoices resembling advertising letters, disguised order confirmation forms and misleading telemarketing all have in common the fact that the services rendered are insignificant in relation to the price charged. The debts are collected aggressively. Misleading marketing methods are particularly problematic because they are on the borders of legality.
For this reason it is often unlikely that entrepreneurs who have fallen victim to them can secure any correction to the questionable claim. In general, the authorities have been able to do very little to remedy matters. Yet it is crystal-clear that dishonest marketing is morally indefensible. In addition, marketing methods based on dishonesty destroy confidence in our system of contracts. The flawless operation of the market is vital to the European Union. Decisive action ought therefore to be taken against phenomena which impede it.
Is the Commission aware of the problems which misleading marketing causes to economic operators? What has the Commission done to eradicate questionable marketing methods?
Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission
The Commission is fully aware of the problem referred to by the Honourable Member. It has received a number of complaints relating to the practices mentioned, directly from businesses as well as through Honourable Members.
In general, practices such as those described in the Honourable Member's question could amount to misleading advertising, which is addressed by Council Directive 84/450/EEC on misleading and comparative advertising(1). The directive provides for the use of cessation orders or other legal proceedings to prohibit the continued use of misleading advertising.
It is for the competent courts and/or public enforcement authorities of the Member States to decide in each individual case whether a commercial communication is to be considered misleading and to take appropriate enforcement actions against individuals or companies.
Although it cannot intervene in individual cases, the Commission will continue to support the activities of the national enforcement authorities.
Each year, European entrepreneurs pay bills amounting to millions of euros arising from dishonest marketing. In Finland alone, thousands of businesses have fallen victim to misleading marketing in recent years. Claims arise by various dubious methods. False invoices resembling advertising letters, disguised order confirmation forms and misleading telemarketing all have in common the fact that the services rendered are insignificant in relation to the price charged. The debts are collected aggressively. Misleading marketing methods are particularly problematic because they are on the borders of legality.
For this reason it is often unlikely that entrepreneurs who have fallen victim to them can secure any correction to the questionable claim. In general, the authorities have been able to do very little to remedy matters. Yet it is crystal-clear that dishonest marketing is morally indefensible. In addition, marketing methods based on dishonesty destroy confidence in our system of contracts. The flawless operation of the market is vital to the European Union. Decisive action ought therefore to be taken against phenomena which impede it.
Is the Commission aware of the problems which misleading marketing causes to economic operators? What has the Commission done to eradicate questionable marketing methods?
Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission
The Commission is fully aware of the problem referred to by the Honourable Member. It has received a number of complaints relating to the practices mentioned, directly from businesses as well as through Honourable Members.
In general, practices such as those described in the Honourable Member's question could amount to misleading advertising, which is addressed by Council Directive 84/450/EEC on misleading and comparative advertising(1). The directive provides for the use of cessation orders or other legal proceedings to prohibit the continued use of misleading advertising.
It is for the competent courts and/or public enforcement authorities of the Member States to decide in each individual case whether a commercial communication is to be considered misleading and to take appropriate enforcement actions against individuals or companies.
Although it cannot intervene in individual cases, the Commission will continue to support the activities of the national enforcement authorities.