When a television spot misleads consumers
Santiago, June 11 two my four. Views:
It reproduces the original ruling, with the exception of the fifth recital, which is suppressed. AND YOU HAVE IN YOUR PLACE IN MIND: 1 .- That the National Consumer Service has reported to the Business Enterprise Business Hites SA, represented by Victor Muñoz, because by means of an advertisement broadcast on Channel 7 TV 6 April 2001, launched the market with a promotion called 2 X 1 Hites, indicating in that TV commercial with a voiceover in off the following: Two for one Hites, do not miss the last days of 2 X 1 Hites, bring two and pay one, and after Make successive images the best deals with the final installments of the market lower and remember that you can now buy through the number 800802233 or 2X1 www.hitesnet.com and concludes by Hites, the best deals at the best price.
believes, that the release of that spot, the company committed an offense referred to in Articles 33 and 35 of Law N º N º 19,496. In what has to do with the first of these breaches, indicates that the above message is misleading because it encourages consumers to buy two items and pay only one, in circumstances that would be a promotion to be understood in a straightforward way (for the purchase of two products, it pays for itself one) but instead is a simple price cut for couples of previously established, eg a television and a separate video that cost $ 200,000, as part of this promotion will cost $ 185,000, and also because, in the same advertising, indicates that credit fees are the cheapest on the market, in circumstances that day April 16, 2001, the lowest in the market is the Falabella. Also considered incurred in breach of Article 35 of the Act, as in the television commercial is omitted to indicate in written and verbal which are the basis for promotion, nor set term or term of this matter of its important to consumers when making purchases, 2 .- That, in regard to infringement of Article 33 of Law No. 19,496, be accepted to the disclaimer of the complaint, since taking into account that the advertisement has a short duration of 17 seconds, it is illusory to claim that such information individually in detail and which of those hundreds of products sold in the store are placed in the promotion, which necessarily requires information brochures and magazines in the store, which according to the testimony of Elena Parra Farias, Hugo Núñez and María Valdebenito Rojas Badilla gave way to inform consumers that attended the venue. Nor is credited the offense referred to deception in the value of the shares, since the comparative analysis that underpins it was done by the Economic Analysis Unit later, which took place on April 16, while advertisement that occurred on April 6 and 3 º .- That, however, should be deemed to have been terminated if committed in violation of Article 35 that is charged by Sernac and must be punished for it, because that rule requires suppliers in any promotion or offer shall inform the consumer on the basis of the same and the time or period of its duration, and is the case in that TV spot that realizes the minutes on pages 48 is not announced in any form or bases thereof, or the time or duration of the promotion. With the thought and the provisions of Articles 1, 3, 24, 35, 50 and 61 of Law N º 19.496, on the Protection of Consumer Rights, is repealed the original ruling of 12 November two thousand and two, written at page 103, and instead stated that condemnation of the offending Hites Comercial SA, represented by Victor Muñoz, to pay a fine for tax benefit of ten monthly tax units, because it committed the infringement of Article 35 of Law No. 19,496, on the Protection of Consumer Rights . Be it enacted by way of pressure relief and night confinement by the representative of the infringer, if not paid within five days the fine imposed in the sentence, according to the terms of Article 23 of Law No. 18,287. Register and devuélvanse. Drafting of the Minister Don Juan Eduardo Fuentes Belmar. Role No. 7250-2002 .- No member firm lawyer Mr Cruchaga, who attended the hearing the cause and the agreement by absence. Issued by the Seventh Division of the Court of Appeals, presided by Mr. Cornelio Villarroel Ramírez Minister and composed of the Minister Mr. Juan Eduardo Fuentes Belmar and Advocate Mr. Angel Cruchaga Integrative Gandarillas. ROLE
0 comments:
Post a Comment