Processing of your personal data

This website might use cookies or other personal data for the purposes of the functioning of the website. Some of these cookies are mandatory, while the other ones only help us to improve your browsing experience and get information on how the website is used.

Privacy policy


04 04 2019
3196 M.jpg

The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania dismissed the appeal by UAB Pigu and left unchanged the decision of Vilnius Regional Administrative Court upholding EUR 5,400 fine which Konkurencijos taryba imposed on the company for misleading advertising.

The competition authority found that on 29 July 2015 the company disseminated misleading advertising claims: “The big summer sale; Special perfume and home appliance offers for one day!; up to 80 %“; “SUPER offer! Perfume and home appliances – up to 80 %!“. Consumers were offered to buy goods of two different categories, however, the 80 per cent discount was applied only to 1 sort of perfume out of 171, while the highest discount to household appliances (according to the data indicated on the website was only 58 per cent.

The Court agreed with Vilnius Regional Court that consumers might have expected to buy a sufficient amount of perfume and home appliances with an 80 per cent discount. The Court acknowledged that it was unfair to disseminate information about the 80 per cent discount if it was applied only to 1 or 0,58 per cent of perfume, and did not even apply to home appliances. That being said, there were sufficient grounds to impose a fine on Pigu for the infringement of the Law on Advertising.

The Court’s decision is final and binding.