Remarks by the decision of November 24, 2010 n.21828 Guarantee Authority for Competition and del Mercato (AGCM)
With the above-mentioned measures del 24 novembre 2010, l’autorità Antitrust ha avuto modo di valutare il contenuto di un insidioso contratto telefonico, i cui elementi avevano la caratteristica di incidere in maniera indiretta ma fondamentale sui più importanti aspetti economici dell’offerta.
Il contratto in questione è quello chiamato “ Tim Premia ”, pubblicizzato con lo slogan (su Tv, stampa ed Internet) “ 10€ ad ogni ricarica ”. E’ fondamentale in questo caso, per ciò che argomenterà l’Autorità, intendere bene le caratteristiche del messaggio pubblicitario, costituito da “ una story board , della durata di circa due minuti, di cui sono protagonisti i giovani componenti di una band musicale itinerante. Mentre sullo schermo scorre l’indicazione: “ Tim Premia, 10€ in regalo verso tutti gli operatori ”, una voce fuori campo illustra il contenuto della promozione mediante affermazioni, quali: “Tim Premia la nuova tariffa di Tim che ti premia sempre, come? Beh facile, ogni volta che ricarichi di almeno 20 euro, Tim ti dà 10 euro in più per chiamare tutti, regalati, sembra incredibile vero? […] ”. Nella sezione sottostante, con minore evidenza grafica rispetto ai claim principali, compare il super : “il bonus vale 30 gg.. Bonus max 150€/ mese. Per conoscere tutte le condizioni anche tariffarie dell’offerta chiama il 119” ”.
Quello che viene quindi lamentato dai consumatori e dalle Associazioni denuncianti, è che, in realtà, l’adesione alla promozione comportava la variazione del piano tariffario originario del cliente, “ a sua volta implicante un costo di 6 euro (rimborsato, per le attivazioni effettuate entro il 31 luglio 2009, mediante accredito di traffico telefonico), nonché l’applicazione a charging unit for calls rather expensive and based on units in advance of sixty seconds and the connection fee charged .
Telecom defended himself, then, highlighting, inter alia, that the advertisement was still referring to the "new tariff Tim " specification would be sufficient to draw on this point the attention of an averagely attentive.
Heard prior AGCOM (the Authority on Communications), positive identification of misconduct ed ingannevole, l’Autorità Antitrust concludeva per la condanna di Telecom ad una sanzione amministrativa di € 75.000, diventate € 95.000 per ‘recidiva’ del soggetto multato, per pubblicità scorretta ai sensi degli artt. 20, co.II, e 22 Codice del Consumo.
Quel che qui interessa, tuttavia, non è tanto il risultato dell’indagine e della successiva condanna, quanto le modalità di valutazione degli elementi del contratto da parte dell’Autorità.
Nel caso di specie, infatti, ricordiamo che lo spot televisivo faceva, effettivamente, pur sempre riferimento alla ‘ nuova tariffa Tim ', rightly pointed out the defense argument of the telephone company, whose contents could be in the abstract, considered sufficient to' attract the attention 'of the consumer to whom the advertisement.
But the Authority exceeds this argument not so much from a perspective purely 'formal', or checking to see if in fact this term could or could not, in his letter, meet the criteria of correct information, but rather ' substantial 'of the advertisement as a whole, which is the most interesting aspect of pronunciation, which will emphasize the most important concepts.
" Contrary to the claims of Telecom specifies the Market Authority, the effect misleading omission of that information can not be regarded in any way by the alleged healed evocation, in the televised address, the New Tariff ("The new tariff TIM"). Both for the sake of brevity for the diffusion procedures used ( few words in a much longer spot, spoken by a voiceover and without the support of no visual evidence ) the reference is in fact quite inappropriate to point out to recipients, with sufficient clarity, that the accession bid in reality implies the activation of a new structured service plan, based on unit costs and policies is likely to be charged different and potentially less expensive than the original plan of the user. In this regard, it should be noted that the overall approach the message tends to accredit " Tim rewards" - since its name - as a ' tariff option and not as a new tariff that would replace the previous year. In what the message reveals a related aspect decettivo because, in publicizing a new tariff, were not marked with proper contextual evidence and not just the graphics positive aspects (ie the bonus " € 10 a gift to all operators "), but also other elements that make up the same rate as the general characteristics of charging that provide, among other things, in this case, the charge of the connection fee (at least in its version) and pricing units in advance of sixty seconds .
As anticipated, this is a preliminary summary, but a real treasure trove of interpretative criteria, which suggests the Authority should apply in evaluating a television advertising spot, and more.
We try to list them.
a) The most important is the assessment of 'overall setting "of the advertising message, or evaluate all elements of the message in their entirety and in their relationship, and not individually (in this case, the terms of the 'new tariff Tim ');
b) c ' then the evaluation of the 'times' of the message: if the words of the clause is ' too short' compared to the entire spot ' much longer' , that fact itself is important and self-evaluation element;
c) there then, most important, the 'method of conveying ', and point the decision is truly exemplary, separating what is happening 'on the screen ' and what is indicated by ' voiceover '. Here the author demonstrates a deep understanding of the 'Understanding Media', with full knowledge that the contents of a 'voice off' can be effectively canceled by the images that contradict its meaning.
d) The pronunciation is therefore also well illustrated the mechanism called ' decettivo ' (ie misleading) of the spot, pointing out a ' graphic evidence' that does not manage to balance the 'positive aspects ' (the consumer) with the 'other ' that characterize the offer. Again, the attention given by the Authority on the graphic aspects of the spot is indicative of a legal analysis that is done, similar to specific areas such as copyright and industrial law, on matters not purely literary communication in an area where the 'content' is nothing compared to what was said or written.
s) But the Authority does even more, since even treating the item as a literal aspect 'decettivo' because ' tends to credit 'supply, even in its' name ' as a tariff option, and not as a new rate.
the author's attention focuses on these elements of advertising, is therefore very promising in regard to the development of the interpretation of the advertisement on the consumer affairs, which he said, so even new aspects are certainly difficult and elusive to be evaluated, on which you will need to deepen technical and legal reflection.
But at this point could rise to another type of considerations: when an analysis of the graphic elements of a paper contract? Sanctioned what we have to wait to see a contract, whose terms in favor of the professional ones are not highlighted as a 'positive' for the consumer and are written in a font microscopic or at least smaller than that in which the first written?
Probably, this Authority's decision poses serious basis, at least theoretical potential for such developments.
Mr. Antonio M. Polito
0 comments:
Post a Comment