Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Italian Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Consumer Benchmarks in the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive

Part of the book series: Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation ((SEELR,volume 5))

  • 1186 Accesses

Abstract

In Italy, unfair commercial practices until the early 1990s could only be challenged by competitors, by means of the general tort clause and through the general provisions on unfair competition, both laid down in the Italian Civil Code. The few available cases suggest that the courts did not expect the consumer to be misled easily, expecting the consumer to be critical and suspicious towards advertisements. Since the implementation of the Misleading Advertising Directive and the establishment of the Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (Italian Competition and Market Authority, AGCM) in the early 1990s, Italian law took a turn towards applying a more consumer-friendly benchmark. In the decisions of the AGCM and the judgments of the administrative courts, the average consumer is not seen as particularly informed, observant and circumspect. In addition, vulnerable groups are identified in order to afford them protection against fraudulent trade practices, such as those related to paranormal products. Since the vulnerability of the average consumer is also emphasised, there is no clear demarcation between the average consumer benchmark and the target group and vulnerable group benchmarks.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    G Schricker, Italien, (Munich, Beck, 1965) 204. See also T Lettl, Der lauterkeitsrechtliche Schutz vor irreführender Werbung in Europa (Munich, Beck, 2004) 242–243 and A Hucke, Erforderlichkeit einer Harmonisierung des Wettbewerbsrecht in Europa (Baden-Baden, Nomos, 2001) 329–331.

  2. 2.

    The AGCM database is available at www.agcm.it/consumatore/consumatore-delibere.html

  3. 3.

    T Lettl, Der lauterkeitsrechtliche Schutz vor irreführender Werbung in Europa (Munich, Beck, 2004) 240–241.

  4. 4.

    P Auteri, ‘Brief report on Italian unfair competition law’, in M Hilty and F Henning-Bodewig (eds), Law against unfair competition: towards a new paradigm in Europe? (Berlin, Springer 2007) 151, G Alpa, ‘Rules on competition and fair trading’, in H. Collins (ed), The forthcoming Directive on Unfair Commercial Practices, (The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 2004) 94–98 and F Henning-Bodewig, ‘Die Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs in EU-Mitgliedstaaten’ (2010) GRUR Int. 277.

  5. 5.

    P Auteri, ‘Brief report on Italian unfair competition law’, in M Hilty and F Henning-Bodewig (eds), Law against unfair competition: towards a new paradigm in Europe? (Berlin, Springer 2007) 152. Consumer associations have this possibility based on Art. 2601 CC, introduced in the Mussolini era. At the time it applied to the obligatory public law professional associations, but it remained into force since then and is still applicable now. See Hucke, A, Erforderlichkeit einer Harmonisierung des Wettbewerbsrecht in Europa(Baden-Baden, Nomos, 2001) 321–322 and L Antoniolli and E Ioriatti, ‘National report: Italy’, in R Schulze & H Schulte-Nölke (eds), Analysis of national fairness laws aimed at protecting consumers in relation to commercial practices (report for the Directorate-General Health and Consumer Protection of the European Commission, 2003) 2.

  6. 6.

    T Lettl, Der lauterkeitsrechtliche Schutz vor irreführender Werbung in Europa (Munich, Beck, 2004) 241. Corte Constituzionale 14/21 January 1988, Gazz. Uff. 3 February 1988, pp. 31–32.

  7. 7.

    See also P Auteri, ‘Brief report on Italian unfair competition law’, in M Hilty and F Henning-Bodewig (eds), Law against unfair competition: towards a new paradigm in Europe? (Berlin, Springer 2007), P Kindler, Italienisches Handels- und Wirtschaftsrecht (Heidelberg, Recht und Wirtschaft, 2002) 138–139 and L Antoniolli and E Ioriatti, ‘National report: Italy’, in R Schulze & H Schulte-Nölke (eds), Analysis of national fairness laws aimed at protecting consumers in relation to commercial practices (report for the Directorate-General Health and Consumer Protection of the European Commission, 2003) 2. See on comparative advertising also S Somariello, ‘Vergleichende und irreführende Werbung in Italien nach der Umsetzung der Richtlinie 97/55/EG’ (2003) GRUR Int. 29.

  8. 8.

    G Schricker, Italien, (Munich, Beck, 1965) 204. See also T Lettl, Der lauterkeitsrechtliche Schutz vor irreführender Werbung in Europa (Munich, Beck, 2004) 242–243 and A Hucke, Erforderlichkeit einer Harmonisierung des Wettbewerbsrecht in Europa (Baden-Baden, Nomos, 2001) 329–331.

  9. 9.

    Tribunale di Torino, Riv. Dir. Comm. 1915 II, 166. See A Hucke, Erforderlichkeit einer Harmonisierung des Wettbewerbsrecht in Europa (Baden-Baden, Nomos, 2001) 330 and T Lettl, Der lauterkeitsrechtliche Schutz vor irreführender Werbung in Europa (Munich, Beck, 2004) 243.

  10. 10.

    Corte di Cassazione 17–04-1962, GRUR Int. 1964, 515 (Motta Alemagna). See A Hucke, Erforderlichkeit einer Harmonisierung des Wettbewerbsrecht in Europa (Baden-Baden, Nomos, 2001) 330 and T Lettl, Der lauterkeitsrechtliche Schutz vor irreführender Werbung in Europa (Munich, Beck, 2004) 243.

  11. 11.

    P Kindler, Italienisches Handels- und Wirtschaftsrecht (Heidelberg, Recht und Wirtschaft, 2002) 138–139.

  12. 12.

    T Lettl, Der lauterkeitsrechtliche Schutz vor irreführender Werbung in Europa (Munich, Beck, 2004) 243, A Hucke, Erforderlichkeit einer Harmonisierung des Wettbewerbsrecht in Europa (Baden-Baden, Nomos, 2001) 331.

  13. 13.

    Decree of 25 January 1992, Regulation No. 74. See P Auteri, ‘Brief report on Italian unfair competition law’, in M Hilty and F Henning-Bodewig (eds), Law against unfair competition: towards a new paradigm in Europe? (Berlin, Springer 2007) 156–158.

  14. 14.

    See www.agcm.it. See also L Antoniolli and E Ioriatti, ‘National report: Italy’, in R Schulze & H Schulte-Nölke (eds), Analysis of national fairness laws aimed at protecting consumers in relation to commercial practices (report for the Directorate-General Health and Consumer Protection of the European Commission, 2003) 7 and P Auteri, ‘Brief report on Italian unfair competition law’, in M Hilty and F Henning-Bodewig (eds), Law against unfair competition: towards a new paradigm in Europe? (Berlin, Springer 2007) 156.

  15. 15.

    All decisions of the AGCM are available on the Authority’s website.

  16. 16.

    P Auteri, ‘Brief report on Italian unfair competition law’, in M Hilty and F Henning-Bodewig (eds), Law against unfair competition: towards a new paradigm in Europe? (Berlin, Springer 2007) 157–158. Legislative decree of 6 September 2005, No. 206, pursuant to Article 7 of Law No. 299 of 29 July 2003.

  17. 17.

    Decreto legislativo 146/2007 of 2 August 2007. On this decree in general, see A Genovese, ‘La normativa sulle pratiche commerciali scorette’ (2008) Giurisprudenza commercial, 762 and onwards, M Dona, Pubblicità, pratiche commerciali e contratti nel Codice del Consumo (Torino, UTET Giuridica, 2008) and G de Cristofaro and A Zaccaria, Commentario breve al diritto dei consumatori (Padova, CEDAM, 2010).

  18. 18.

    See in the context of misleading advertising also L Antoniolli and E Ioriatti, ‘National report: Italy’, in R Schulze & H Schulte-Nölke (eds), Analysis of national fairness laws aimed at protecting consumers in relation to commercial practices (report for the Directorate-General Health and Consumer Protection of the European Commission, 2003) 7, who state misleading advertising ‘is one of the areas in which the antitrust authority has been more active, and its decisions have had a significant impact on advertising in Italy.’

  19. 19.

    The administrative judgments of the Tar Lazio as well as the Consiglio di Stato, can be found online at www.giustizia-amministrativa.it.

  20. 20.

    See G de Cristofaro, ‘Die zivilrechtlichen Folgen des Verstoßes gegen das Verbot unlauterer Geschäftspraktiken: eine vergleichende Analyse der Lösungen der EU-Mitgliedstaaten’ (2010) GRUR Int. 1025.

  21. 21.

    Article 140-bis of the Codice del Consumo explicitly states that a class action can be started based on a breach of the provisions on unfair commercial practices.

  22. 22.

    See, for example, e.g. Tar Lazio, Sez. I, 25 February 2009. No. 3723 (Videosystem & Areafilm).

  23. 23.

    Tar Lazio, Sez. I, 25 February 2009. No. 3723 (Videosystem & Areafilm). See also Tar Lazio, Sez. I, 13 October 2003, No. 8321 (Peter Van Wood) and Tar Lazio, Sez. I, 23 May 2011, No. 4532 (Benefit-BluPill). The translations provided in this chapter are made by the author, with the help of native speakers.

  24. 24.

    See Tar Lazio, Sez. I, 11 January 2006, No. 1372 (Sigarette Lights).

  25. 25.

    This was first stated by the CJEU in the Gut Springenheide case, CJEU 16 July 1998, Case C-210/96, ECR 1998, p. I-4657 (Gut Springenheide).

  26. 26.

    See on this issue also paragraph 4.6 of this book.

  27. 27.

    See also C Alvisi, ‘The Reasonable Consumer under European and Italian Regulations on Unfair Business-to-Consumer Commercial Practices’, in G Bongiovanni, G Sartor and C Valentini (eds), Reasonableness and law (Law and philosophy library vol. 86) (Vienna, Springer 2009) 288–292. In my view, however, Alvisi is overstating the limited expectations of the average consumer, arguing that the average consumer is someone ‘who believes in miracles when it comes to their health, beauty, and physical and sexual performance’ and that the average consumer is ‘superstitious’ and ‘a fearful person’’. In many of these cases the AGCM is opting for protection of minorities rather than actually expecting that the average consumer is superstitious, fearful, etc. See also the discussion on target groups and vulnerable groups below.

  28. 28.

    For a ground of appeal raised specifically against the application of the average consumer benchmark, e.g. Cons. Stato, Sez. VI, 27 July 2010, No. 4905 (Fastweb).

  29. 29.

    Tar Lazio, Sez. I, 3 March 2004, No. 2020 (Sanremo giovani).

  30. 30.

    See, for example, e.g. Tar Lazio, Sez. I, 9 August 2010, No. 30421 (Mediamarket). Tar Lazio, Sez. I, 13 December 2010, No. 36119 (Bioscalin crescita capelli). See similarly L Antoniolli and E Loriatti, ‘National report: Italy’, in R Schulze & H Schulte-Nölke (eds), Analysis of national fairness laws aimed at protecting consumers in relation to commercial practices (report for the Directorate-General Health and Consumer Protection of the European Commission, 2003) 7.

  31. 31.

    See also R Rolli, Codice del Consumo—Commentato per articolo con dottrina e giurispudenza (Piacenza, La Tribuna 2012) 237.

  32. 32.

    Tar Lazio, Sez. I, 29 March 2010, No. 4931 (Wind Absolute Tariffa). See also the case note of M. Caruso in Diritto dell’Informazione e dell’Informatica 2010, p. 956 et sEq.

  33. 33.

    Similar reasoning can be found in, for example, Cons. Stato, Sez. VI, 17 February 2012, No. 853 (Eutelia) and AGCM 5 July 2001, No. 9747 (PI3350), Boll. 27/2001 (Tariffa Long TIM ). In the latter case, the AGCM emphasised that the telecom provider’s information on the price should be ‘complete’, ‘clear’ and ‘immediately perceptible’.

  34. 34.

    Tar Lazio, Sez. I, 19 May 2010, No. 12364 (Accord Italia—Carta Auchan). For a similar judgment, see Tar Lazio Sez. I, 18 January 2011, No. 449 (Coin).

  35. 35.

    Tar Lazio, Sez. I, 25 March 2009, No. 3722 (ENEL) and Cons. Stato. Sez. VI, 9 June 2011, No. 3511 (Eni).

  36. 36.

    Tar Lazio, Sez. I, 1 February 2011, No. 894 (Fastweb). For the AGCM decision, see AGCM 14 December 2000, No. 9009 (PI2996), Boll. 50/2000 (Fastweb).

  37. 37.

    AGCM 11 January 2006, No. 15104 (PI4927), Boll. 2/2006 (Sacchetti COOP degradabili al 100 %). See also L Ubertazzi, Concorrenza sleale e pubblicità (Padova, CEDAM, 2007) 20.

  38. 38.

    See, for example, Cons. Stato. Sez. VI, 9 June 2011, No. 3511 (Eni), Cons. Stato, Sez. VI, 20 July 2011, No. 4391 (Mediamarket) and Tar Lazio, Sez. I, 7 August 2002, No. 7028 (Medestea). This conclusion is also drawn by C Alvisi, ‘The Reasonable Consumer under European and Italian Regulations on Unfair Business-to-Consumer Commercial Practices’, in G Bongiovanni, G Sartor and C Valentini (eds), Reasonableness and law (Law and philosophy library vol. 86) (Vienna, Springer 2009) 288, with regard to the AGCM practice.

  39. 39.

    See, for example, Cons. Stato, Sez. VI, 8 March 2006, No. 1263 (Leonardo da Vinci). This case deals with advertising for a state diploma course, making general claims such as ‘most effective and quickest way to graduate’ and ‘latest cognitive techniques’. The Court argued that these claims are standard ad statements to draw curiosity and that they are not deceptive.

  40. 40.

    See, for example, Cons. Stato, Sez. VI, 23 February 2012, No. 1012 (Carapelli Firenze) and Cons. Stato, Sez. VI, 12 March 2012, No. 1385 (Mo). Both cases deal with the mentioning of a place name on the label of olive oil being sold, the place being the seat of the company and not the origin of the raw materials, i.e., the olives.

  41. 41.

    Cons. Stato, Sez. VI, 12 March 2012, No. 1387 (Congress). In other cases, elderly consumers are seen as a particularly vulnerable group as to doorstep selling. See paragraph 7.6.3 below.

  42. 42.

    See also L Ubertazzi, Concorrenza sleale e pubblicità (Padova, CEDAM, 2007) 20 and R Rolli, Codice del Consumo—Commentato per articolo con dottrina e giurispudenza (Piacenza, La Tribuna 2012) 232.

  43. 43.

    See also R Rolli, Codice del Consumo—Commentato per articolo con dottrina e giurispudenza (Piacenza, La Tribuna 2008, 2012).

  44. 44.

    See, for example, Tar Lazio, Sez. I, 23 May 2011, No. 4532 (Benefit-BluPill) and Tar Lazio, Sez. I, 21 September 2009, No. 9083 (Soc David 2).

  45. 45.

    Tar Lazio Sez. I, 21 January 2010, No. 645 (Telecom Italia). The target group benchmark of Article 5(2) Directive/ Article 20(2) of the Codice del Consumo is therefore hardly ever applied. This also seems related to the fact that the average consumer benchmark is often already tailored to a specific product or sector, as we have seen above.

  46. 46.

    Article 6 old Codice del Consumo. On the vulnerability of children and adolescents, see N Zorzi Galgano, ‘Il consumatore medio ed il consumatore vulnerabile nel diritto comunitario’ (2010) Contratto e impresa, Europa 572–583.

  47. 47.

    AGCM 8 May 2003, No. 11994 (PI3981), Boll. 19/2003 (Memorizzatore Genius). See also N Zorzi Galgano, ‘Il consumatore medio ed il consumatore vulnerabile nel diritto comunitario’ (2010) Contratto e impresa, Europa 572.

  48. 48.

    AGCM 20 April 2005, No. 14253 (PI4702), Boll. 16/2005 (Suonerie per cellulari ‘09’), AGCM 6 February 2007, No. 16470 (PI5497), Boll. 6/2007 (Servizi teleunit per maggiorenni su reviste per regazzi), AGCM 21 August 2008, No. 18799 (PS457), Boll. 32/2008 (10 SMS Gratis), AGCM 2 October 2008, No. 18951 (PS322), Boll. 37/2008 (Neomobile Suonerie Gratis), Tar Lazio Sez. I, 21 January 2010, No. 645 (Telecom Italia). Same: Tar Lazio Sez. I, 21 January 2010, No. 646 (Telecom Italia), Tar Lazio Sez. I, 21 January 2010, No. 647 (Zed Sms non richiesti), Tar Lazio, Sez. I, 21 January 2010, No. 648 (Telecom Italia), Tar Lazio, Sez I, 2 August 2010, No. 29511 (Suonerie.it), Cons. Stato, Sez. VI, 24 March 2011, No. 1810 (Telecom Italia), Cons. Stato, Sez. VI, 24 March 2011, No. 1811 (Telecom Italia), Cons. Stato, Sez. VI, 24 March 2011, No. 1812 (Telecom Italia), Cons. Stato, Sez. VI, 24 March 2011, No. 1813 (Telecom Italia), Tar Lazio, Sez. I, 21 September 2009, No. 9083 (Soc David 2), Cons. Stato, Sez. VI, 4 April 2011, No. 2099 (Neomobile). See on some of these cases affecting teenagers also N Zorzi Galgano, ‘Il consumatore medio ed il consumatore vulnerabile nel diritto comunitario’ (2010) Contratto e impresa, Europa 572–573

  49. 49.

    Tar Lazio, Sez I, 2 August 2010, No. 29511 (Suonerie.it).

  50. 50.

    Tar Lazio, Sez. I, 9 August 2010, No. 30428 (È Domenica papa).

  51. 51.

    See, for example, AGCM 13 April 1995, No. 2951 (PI412), Boll. 15–16/1995 (Centro Nazionale Enti Assistenza) and AGCM 17 January 2002, No. 10347 (PI3482), Boll. 3/2002 (Hotel Laurens).

  52. 52.

    See also AGCM 15 December 2010, No. 21916 (PS5803), Boll. 49/2010 (Italcogim Energie—Attivazioni non richieste) and AGCM 23 November 2011, No. 23011 (PS3764), Boll. 47/2011 (Edison—Attivazioni non richieste) (on energy supply), AGCM 13 March 1997, No. 4780 (PI1084C), Boll. 11/1997 (Agil), AGCM 13 March 1997, No. 4781 (PI1084D), Boll. 11/1997 (Rheumasan), AGCM 13 March 1997, No. 4784 (PI1126), Boll. 11/1997 (Euro Bio vit.), AGCM 13 March 1997, No. 4779 (PI1084A), Boll. 11/1997 (Biosal) and AGCM 13 March 1997, No. 4778 (PI1084B), Boll. 11/1997 (Euro Bio Med) (on a miraculous product made out of cat hairs that is supposed to provide pain relief) and AGCM 28 March 1996, No. 3753 (PI717), Boll. 13/1996 (Meritene crema) (on food supplements).

  53. 53.

    AGCM 9 May 2012, No. 23551 (PS4791), Boll. 19/2012 (UTET—Enciclopedia non richiesta), AGCM 8 August 2012, No. 23816 (PS7557), Boll. 33/2012 (Federico Motta Editore—Modalità di vendita) and AGCM 20 February 2013, No. 24230 (IP141), Boll. 9/2013 (FMR-ART'È—Vendita libri di pregio a domicilio).

  54. 54.

    AGCM 18 July 2012, No. 23744 (PS6576), Boll. 29/2012 (Titel—Corso di informatica). In this case not only elderly consumer were identified as particularly vulnerable, but also people looking for jobs. In this case, the AGCM does not specify why the elderly are seen as particularly vulnerable to the practice, but it seems that the fact that it concerned doorstep selling is relevant here.

  55. 55.

    See also N Zorzi Galgano, ‘Il consumatore medio ed il consumatore vulnerabile nel diritto comunitario’ (2010) Contratto e impresa, Europa 591–592.

  56. 56.

    AGCM 11 February 1994, No. 1784 (PI191), Boll. 6–7/1994 (Ditta Euromail).

  57. 57.

    AGCM 21 February 1996, No. 3640 (PI708), Boll. 8/1996 (Piramide della Felicita’). See similarly AGCM 23 November 1995, No. 3412 (PI611) Boll. 47/1995 (Divino Otelma).

  58. 58.

    See on this case also N Zorzi Galgano, ‘Il consumatore medio ed il consumatore vulnerabile nel diritto comunitario’ (2010) Contratto e impresa, Europa 591.

  59. 59.

    See, for example, AGCM 23 November 1995, No. 3412 (PI611) Boll. 47/1995 (Divino Otelma).

  60. 60.

    Tar Lazio, Sez. I, 13 October 2003, No. 8321 (Peter Van Wood).

  61. 61.

    See e.g. AGCM 23 April 2009, No. 19791 (PS2681), Boll. 16/2009 (Sensitiva Adelia Felice), AGCM 28 May 2009, No. 19912 (PS2860), Boll. 21/2009 (Stufetta Miracolosa), AGCM 26 May 2010, No. 21174 (PS717), Boll. 22/2010 (Mago Vito Lo Cascio) and AGCM 26 May 2010, No. 21179 (PS2300), Boll. 22/2010 (Mago Anthony Carr).

  62. 62.

    See also C Alvisi, ‘The Reasonable Consumer under European and Italian Regulations on Unfair Business-to-Consumer Commercial Practices’, in G Bongiovanni, G Sartor and C Valentini (eds), Reasonableness and law (Law and philosophy library vol. 86) (Vienna, Springer 2009) 288–289.

  63. 63.

    AGCM 13 April 1995, No. 2954 (PI446), Boll. 15-16/1995 (Argilla radiante).

  64. 64.

    AGCM 21 July 2010, No. 21379 (PS3689), Boll. 29/2010 (Benefit-BluPill). The case was confirmed by the Tar Lazio, Sez. I, 23 May 2011, No. 4532 (Benefit-BluPill). See also AGCM 25 February 1999, No. 6937 (PI2225), Boll. 8/1999 (Up 100 compresse), which is also about impotence but in which the deceptiveness is tested applying the benchmark of the average consumer rather than the vulnerable consumer.

  65. 65.

    AGCM 13 April 1995, No. 2953 (PI445), Boll. 15–16/1995 (IDOS).

  66. 66.

    AGCM 10 September 2009, No. 20284 (PS891), Boll. 36/2009 (Bioscalin crescita capelli). The judgment has been confirmed by the Tar Lazio, Sez. I, 13 December 2010, No. 36119 (Bioscalin crescita capelli).

  67. 67.

    AGCM 13 April 1995, No. 2955 (PI447), Boll. 15–16/1995 (Il segreto di Venere).

  68. 68.

    AGCM 30 May 1996, No. 3941 (PI650), Boll. 22/1996 (Dieta Slimming), AGCM 26 March 1999, No. 7024 (PI2245), Boll. 12/1999 (Dimagrante Chitosan), AGCM 21 December 2000, No. 9060 (PI3043), Boll. 51-52/2000 (Adiposforte), AGCM 16 March 2000, No. 8152 (PI2795), Boll. 11/2000 (Greenlife), AGCM 22 March 2001, No. 9343 (PI3103), Boll. 12/2001 (Rekorp G-Force Metabolic), AGCM 29 March 2001, No. 9367 (PI3128), Boll. 13/2001 (Fat Blocker Diet), AGCM 1 August 2001, No. 9848 (PI2620C), Boll. 31/2001 (Elettrostimolatore Beauty Center), AGCM 8 August 2001, No. 9867 (PI3286), Boll. 32/2001 (Newbody), AGCM 6 September 2001, No. 9924 (PI3323), Boll. 35–36/2001 (Bruciakal di prodotti naturali), AGCM 11 October 2001, No. 10026 (PI3330), Boll. 41/2001 (Fitness Beta 3), AGCM 13 December 2001, No. 10230 (PI3400), Boll. 50/2001 (D-Stock di Vichy), AGCM 13 December 2001, No. 10232 (PI3418), Boll. 50/2001 (Pectina di frutta dimagrante), AGCM 24 January 2002, No. 10372 (PI3465), Boll. 4/2002 (Body Slim), AGCM 14 April 2010, No. 21013 (PS4025), Boll. 15/2010 (Medestea—Full fast), AGCM 15 June 2010, No. 21260 (PS5445), Boll. 24/2010 (Centri Dimagranti Sobrino) and AGCM 8 September 2010, No. 21539 (PS1898), Boll. 37/2010 (Pool Pharma—Kilocal).

  69. 69.

    There are exceptions to this, see, for example, AGCM 27 April 1994, No. 1922 (PI179), Boll. 17/1994 (Bromelina), in which the AGCM speaks of ‘la naturale credulità delle persone che vivono una situazione di disagio’, i.e., ‘the natural credulity of people living in a state of distress’.

  70. 70.

    AGCM 8 September 2010, No. 21539 (PS1898), Boll. 37/2010 (Pool Pharma—Kilocal).

  71. 71.

    This fits the wordings of Article 5(2) Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, stating that ‘the average consumer whom [the trade practice] reaches or to whom it is addressed’ must be affected in his economic behaviour.

  72. 72.

    AGCM 24 January 2002, No. 10372 (PI3465), Boll. 4/2002 (Body Slim).

  73. 73.

    See also C Alvisi, ‘The Reasonable Consumer under European and Italian Regulations on Unfair Business-to-Consumer Commercial Practices’, in G Bongiovanni, G Sartor and C Valentini (eds), Reasonableness and law (Law and philosophy library vol. 86) (Vienna, Springer 2009) 289.

References

  • Alvisi, C, ‘The Reasonable Consumer under European and Italian Regulations on Unfair Business-to-Consumer Commercial Practices’, in G Bongiovanni, G Sartor and C Valentini (eds), Reasonableness and law (Law and philosophy library vol. 86) (Vienna, Springer 2009) 283–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alpa, G, ‘Rules on competition and fair trading’, in H. Collins (ed), The forthcoming Directive on Unfair Commercial Practices, (The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 2004) 91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Antoniolli, L and Loriatti, L, ‘National report: Italy’, in R Schulze & H Schulte-Nölke (eds), Analysis of national fairness laws aimed at protecting consumers in relation to commercial practices (report for the Directorate-General Health and Consumer Protection of the European Commission, 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  • Auteri, P, ‘Brief report on Italian unfair competition law’, in M Hilty and F Henning-Bodewig (eds), Law against unfair competition: towards a new paradigm in Europe? (Berlin, Springer 2007) 151.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Cristofaro, G, ‘Die zivilrechtlichen Folgen des Verstoßes gegen das Verbot unlauterer Geschäftspraktiken: eine vergleichende Analyse der Lösungen der EU-Mitgliedstaaten’ (2010) GRUR Int. 1017.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Cristofaro, G and Zaccaria, A, Commentario breve al diritto dei consumatori (Padova, CEDAM, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dona, M, Pubblicità, pratiche commerciali e contratti nel Codice del Consumo (Torino, UTET Giuridica, 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  • Genovese, A, ‘La normativa sulle pratiche commerciali scorette’ (2008) Giurisprudenza commercial 762 and onwards.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henning-Bodewig, F, ‘Die Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs in EU-Mitgliedstaaten’ (2010) GRUR Int. 273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hucke, A, Erforderlichkeit einer Harmonisierung des Wettbewerbsrecht in Europa (Baden-Baden, Nomos, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kindler, P, Italienisches Handels- und Wirtschaftsrecht (Heidelberg, Recht und Wirtschaft, 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lettl, T, Der lauterkeitsrechtliche Schutz vor irreführender Werbung in Europa (Munich, Beck, 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  • A Hucke, Erforderlichkeit einer Harmonisierung des Wettbewerbsrecht in Europa (Baden-Baden, Nomos, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rolli, R, Codice del Consumo—Commentato per articolo con dottrina e giurispudenza (Piacenza, La Tribuna 2008, 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schricker, G, Italien, (Munich, Beck, 1965).

    Google Scholar 

  • Somariello, S, ‘Vergleichende und irreführende Werbung in Italien nach der Umsetzung der Richtlinie 97/55/EG’ (2003) GRUR Int. 29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ubertazzi, L, Concorrenza sleale e pubblicità (Padova, CEDAM, 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  • Zorzi Galgano, N, ‘Il consumatore medio ed il consumatore vulnerabile nel diritto comunitario’ (2010) Contratto e impresa, Europa 549.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hoogenraad & Haak advertising + IP advocaten / University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Bram B. Duivenvoorde

Authors
  1. Bram B. Duivenvoorde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bram B. Duivenvoorde .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Duivenvoorde, B. (2015). Italian Law. In: The Consumer Benchmarks in the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation, vol 5. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13924-1_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation