It was supposed to be a test, it ended with a paid subscription. Charges of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection against the Wiedza i Practice publishing house

The President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection accused the Wiedza i Practice publishing house of improperly informing consumers when offering trial copies of publications and access to websites, and of denying customers the right to withdraw from the contract – the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection announced on Wednesday.

According to the information provided by the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection, the publishing house offered to consumers trial copies of magazines and test access to websites. The allegations of the President of the Office concern misleading consumers when offering trial copies of publications and access to websites, and violating consumer rights when concluding distance contracts.

A “free” sample that costs money

“It was supposed to be free. However, the way the offer was presented – both during telephone conversations and on websites – could mislead consumers. They may have had the impression that the order only resulted in receiving a free copy or trial access to the magazine or website. In reality, this meant costs. The consumer had to pay for a subscription or access to the website for a specified period of time. To avoid fees, he had to unsubscribe on his own within the specified time,” the Office said.

Tomasz Chróstny, the president of the office quoted in the UOKiK's announcement, noted that the buyer should be reliably informed about the sales rules, actual costs of the product or service and the terms of the contract before concluding it.

It is equally important to transparently determine the nature of contacts undertaken by the seller – so that the consumer is aware that he is dealing with a commercial offer. In other words, the consumer must be aware that he is buying something, knowing exactly what and for how much – emphasized the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection, Tomasz Chróstny.

The consultant has to play his cards open

The Office found that during telephone conversations with consumers, the publishing house's consultants focused on presenting the advantages of the promotional offer and its “free” nature. However, information that using it requires signing a paid subscription contract and that the costs can be avoided by resigning from it was provided only at the end of the conversation. In the opinion of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection, such action may have violated the obligation to provide consumers with clear and complete information before concluding a contract.

“If an entrepreneur contacts a consumer by telephone in order to conclude a distance contract, he or she should inform about it at the beginning of the conversation. The consultant is obliged to introduce himself, provide the name of the company he represents and clearly state that it is a commercial offer. Also in a situation where the consumer himself asked for contact. If the entrepreneur does not meet these requirements, he is breaking the law,” noted the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection.

Right to return and the “Order” button

Another accusation of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection against the Wiedzy i Praktyce publishing house concerns denying customers the right to withdraw from a distance contract. The Office indicated that the publishing house justified this by saying that the deadline for doing so had expired.

“A consumer who has concluded a distance contract (e.g. via the Internet or telephone) has the right to withdraw from it within 14 calendar days without giving a reason and without incurring costs. The deadline should be counted from the moment of receipt of the goods. Meanwhile, in the examined case, the entrepreneur was not able to determine the exact date of receipt of the shipment by the consumer,” the Office pointed out.

The President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection also questioned the way buttons used to place orders on websites are marked. “The “Order” button does not meet statutory requirementsif placing an order involves an obligation to pay. It should be marked with clear wording, e.g. “Order with obligation to pay,” the office noted.

The specter of a fine of up to 10 percent. turnover

The Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) informed that if the allegations are confirmed, the Wiedza i Practice publishing house will face a financial penalty of up to 10%. turnover. The President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection may also order the cessation of the questioned practices and the removal of their effects. (PAP)

(we plan to continue the topic)

gkc/ mrr/