This report contains details of 18 cross-border complaints cases handled by the EASA’s cross-border complaints system and closed during the period April-August 2007. All of these refer to allegations of misleadingness. The media concerned is direct mail (all cases).

Misleadingness

1778 -1779-1780-1781-1782-1783-1788-1789-1790-1792-1800-1801-1802-1796
Construct Data Publishers

14 complaints (misleading) to EASA, from 14 companies - 11 in Israel, 2 in Poland, one in Belgium - concerning a direct mailing from Austria featuring a business guide.  The mailing invited the recipient company to confirm information about it by signing and returning a form.  However, signing the form automatically ordered an advertisement in the guide, and this fact was not made sufficiently clear. Respondents were subsequently pursued for payment.  The complainants found the advertisement to be misleading.  EASA transferred the complaint to the Austrian SRO, OWR, under the cross-border procedure.  OWR noted that this advertiser had persistently disregarded decisions against its advertising by the OWR, and therefore transferred the case to the appropriate authorities.  Complaints transferred to appropriate authorities.  Case closed.

1786-1795
European City Guide   

Complaints (Misleading) received from two UK companies concerning a direct mailing from a Spanish company. The advertiser offered, for a fee, to place a subscriber’s company information in a 'European City guide' and invited the recipient to check the details already printed on the form, and then to sign the response. The complainants believed that the mailing was misleading because even when a response indicated no interest, the advertiser had treated it as an order. The complainant was subsequently asked for payment. Spanish regional competition authorities are already investigating the case. Case transferred to appropriate authorities, case closed.

1793-1794
Nova Channel

Complaints (Misleading) to the EASA, from two French companies concerning a direct mailing from Switzerland featuring a business directory.   The advertiser offered to place subscribers’ company information in a business directory and invited the company to verify the company details already printed on the form, and then to sign the response. The complainant believed that the mailing was misleading because it was not made clear that returning the signed form automatically constituted an order. The complainant had subsequently been pursued for payment.  EASA informed the complainant that the Cantonal and Federal authorities in Switzerland has opened proceedings against this advertiser. 

Complaint transferred to appropriate authority. Case closed.