In 2022 the Bulgarian Commission on Protection of the Competition (“CPC”) delivered a decision where it sustained its understanding that sophisticated advertisement in the telecommunication services sector could slip off from the misleading advertisement prohibitions if it provides sufficient information from the point of view of technically advanced users.

Legal Background:

The proceedings were initiated upon a complaint filed by a group of small TV and telecom operators against an advertisement campaign of the Bulgarian Telecommunication Company (“BTC”) – the former state-owned incumbent operator. Among others, the complainants submitted that BTC’s internet-based television service, accessible via any smart device (EON TV) was advertised in a deceptive and misleading manner. The slogans of the campaign were “Watch EON anywhere, anytime, on any device” and “Get our EON bundle for only BGN 1 per month”. The complainants claimed that it was not explained that the consumers cannot access the service anytime on any device due to a requirement for an internet connection, which specific BTC allegedly failed to mention. Further, in the complainants’ view, the advertised price was misleading because BTC did not explain clearly enough that it applies only for the first six months of the subscription period.

In its statement, BTC noted that the information about all conditions for subscription for the services (including the requirement for internet access) is provided and easily accessible on its website. BTC referred to several prior decisions of the authority and the Bulgarian Supreme Administrative Court ("SAC"), where it was suggested that in advertisements in the telecommunication sector, nobody expects to see slogans and messages that are straightforward. In all cases, the consumers needed to read the terms and conditions for the respective service to become aware of all applicable requirements.

Reasoning and conclusions of the CPC

In its reasoning, the CPC concluded that the advertisement slogan “Watch EON anywhere, anytime, on any device” is not deceptive and/or misleading, insofar as the average telecommunication services consumer is sufficiently informed and critical enough not to take advertising messages at a face value. In all cases, the consumers are aware that there are some technical requirements for the provision of such services, or at least that they need to become acquainted with all technical and contractual formalities before subscribing. Concerning the price for the subscription, the CPC noted that in the advertisements subject to the review, in addition to the advertising slogan was provided a general description that the price is applicable for a pre-defined period. The CPC noted that the advertisement should be interpreted in its entirety, not the separate elements to be interpreted in isolation one from the other.

The CPC further noted that it is a continuous understanding of both the CPC and SAC that consumer choice of telecommunication services is based on a general perception and evaluation of the terms and characteristics of a given service, where said perception is formed through cautious and thorough research on the available information and not on an advertisement alone. This understanding also applies to pricing, as consumers are aware of the price range of telecommunication services and will certainly assume that such pricing announcements are some sort of promotional discount – a standard practice in the sector.

The decision underlines the high level of awareness, caution, and doubt of the average consumer of telecommunication services and that average consumers of such services are critical enough not to take advertisements at face value, but rather to research the conditions of the offer more closely.

Violetta Kunze, Partner

Vladislav Antonov, Senior Associate

DJINGOV, GOUGINSKI, KYUTCHUKOV & VELICHKOV