We would like to ensure that you are still receiving content that you find useful – please confirm that you would like to continue to receive ILO newsletters.
19 September 2019
Misleading business-to-consumer information may lead to significant fines. Two recent Hungarian Competition Authority (HCA) decisions prove that the HCA has maintained its position as a watchdog of both consumer rights and fair competition. However, cooperating with the authority and offering reasonable compensation to harmed consumers may significantly affect the outcome of the HCA's proceeding and result not only in a reduction of the fine,(1) but also in the HCA refraining from establishing an infringement,(2) as enshrined by prior case law.
Numerous consumer complaints led to the commencement of recent competition supervision proceedings against airline operator Wizz Air Hungary Zrt and life insurance company 4Life Direct and its partners.(3) In both cases, the companies were investigated by the HCA because they had omitted to tell customers important information, which thereby harmed them.
Issues with WizzFlex
The HCA investigated Wizz Air's WizzFlex service, which has been available since 2010.
WizzFlex allowed consumers to modify their flight tickets for free. However, the detailed terms – including certain restrictions – of the service were not reflected by Wizz Air's communication.
The HCA uncovered certain rules which were not duly communicated to consumers. These rules were capable of preventing consumers from deriving the full benefits of the payable WizzFlex service. For example:
Wizz Air cooperated with the HCA and offered commitments, including considerable compensation to all consumers who had purchased the Wizz Flex service since 2010. The commitments included:
The HCA noted, among other things, that Wizz Air's cooperation and the compensation offered to consumers played a significant role when it decided to accept the commitments. As a result, the HCA refrained from establishing Wizz Air's liability for the infringement; however, it will keep a close eye on the fulfilment of the commitments.
Following a fine imposed on insurance company 4Life Direct by the HCA in 2016, the company was targeted again by the authority due to numerous consumer complaints. In this second competition supervision proceeding the HCA revealed further unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices regarding two insurance packages offered by 4LifeDirect targeting the elderly – namely, the so-called 'security in old age' and 'hospital care' services. According to the HCA, the consumers were not sufficiently informed about:
After receiving a substantial fine in the first supervision proceeding, 4Life Direct changed its strategy in the second proceeding and cooperated with the HCA. 4Life Direct undertook commitments, including a thorough compensation of the harmed consumers totalling almost HUF100 million (approximately €310,000). Ultimately, the HCA accepted the offered commitments and refrained from establishing the liability of 4Life Direct for the infringement. According to its decision, the HCA had particular regard to the compensation offered to the consumers when it accepted 4Life Direct's commitments.
It now seems that cooperation with the HCA and reparation of the caused damage is well worth the effort. Mitigating the effects of the infringement by the investigated company is not only an attenuating circumstance. It may not only result in a reduction of the fine imposed, but also result in the HCA refraining from establishing an infringement, which sends a different message altogether to the market and consumers, saving the company's reputation.
The HCA has huge discretion in deciding whether the cooperative measures offered by a company are sufficient to avoid the establishment of infringement. From the recent decisions it can be ascertained that a full compensation of the harmed consumers may serve the public interest to an extent which outweighs numerous other reasons for establishing an infringement and imposing a fine. Without doubt, these cases are positive examples for other undertakings involved in future competition supervision proceedings initiated in unfair commercial practice cases.
For further information on this topic please contact Anna Turi or Márk Kovács at Schoenherr Attorneys at Law by telephone (+36 1 8700 700) or email (email@example.com or firstname.lastname@example.org). The Schoenherr Attorneys at Law website can be accessed at www.schoenherr.eu.
(1) See Vodafone (Vj-12/2016).
The materials contained on this website are for general information purposes only and are subject to the disclaimer.
ILO is a premium online legal update service for major companies and law firms worldwide. In-house corporate counsel and other users of legal services, as well as law firm partners, qualify for a free subscription.