Appeal rejected in misleading ads case
September 5, 2024
Court dismisses Digital Revolution’s claims against Media Concept and Google over pricing practices.
The Amsterdam Court of Appeal recently dismissed appeals by Digital Revolution B.V., the operator of the popular 123inkt.nl website, in two separate cases (200.319.920/01 and 200.319.928/01). These rulings rejected Digital Revolution’s claims of misleading advertising against German-based Media Concept Bürobedarf GmbH, which operates the Prindo.nl website, and Google Ireland Ltd.
The cases focused on allegations that Media Concept misled consumers by displaying lower prices for printer supplies on Google Shopping than on its Prindo website while limiting purchases at the discounted price to one item per customer. Digital Revolution, known for its 123inkt.nl platform, argued that these practices violated Dutch laws on misleading advertising and unfair commercial practices, resulting in financial losses and damage to its reputation.
In the first case, Digital Revolution sought an order requiring Media Concept to cease its pricing practices and sought compensation for the alleged harm. The company claimed that the pricing on Google Shopping, which differed from prices on Media Concept’s own site, created confusion, leading consumers to believe the lower price applied to bulk purchases when only a single product could be bought at that rate.
However, the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of Media Concept, upholding a previous decision that the advertising was neither misleading nor in breach of comparative advertising laws. The court determined that consumers were adequately informed of the one-item limitation after clicking through from Google Shopping to the Prindo website. The court further found that displaying different prices on Google Shopping and the company’s own website was not inherently deceptive as long as customers received the relevant details before completing a purchase.
In the second case, Digital Revolution brought a similar claim against Google Ireland Ltd., which operates Google Shopping in the European Economic Area. The company argued that Google should be held liable for facilitating Media Concept’s allegedly misleading pricing. However, the court dismissed this claim as well, concluding that Google, as the platform provider, was not responsible for setting or managing the prices of third-party sellers. The court reaffirmed that Google’s role in the advertising process did not extend to monitoring individual pricing practices.
Digital Revolution presented market research to support its claim that consumers were confused by the pricing on Google Shopping. The research indicated that a significant portion of respondents did not understand the one-product limit, leading Digital Revolution to argue that this confusion amounted to consumer deception. However, the court rejected the findings, citing methodological flaws and insufficient evidence to prove that consumers were misled.
The court dismissed both appeals and ordered Digital Revolution to cover the legal costs for Media Concept and Google. The ruling underscores the importance of transparency in online advertising while highlighting the limits of platform providers’ responsibilities in ensuring clarity around pricing practices.
For Digital Revolution, the court’s rejection of its appeals highlights the difficulties of contesting pricing practices in a competitive online marketplace.
Note: The court decision was translated from Dutch using AI technology. The article itself was written and edited by a human member of our news team.
Categories : World Focus
Tags : Digital Revolution Google IP Legal Media Concept The Netherlands
