Recently, the Commission for the Protection of Competition (CPC) imposed sanctions for misleading advertising campaigns on "BILLA Bulgaria" EOOD and "Kaufland - Bulgaria & Co" KD.
The completed proceedings are a good example of effective interaction between different state institutions - the Commission for Consumer Protection, whose signals gave rise to the initiation of an investigation for violation of competition rules, and the CPC.
The mechanism of committing the violations established in the two parallel investigations is identical and is related to the conduct of promotional campaigns for specific commercial brands of the sunflower oil product, widely promoted in Internet and in printed advertising materials. The CPC found that BILLA and KAUFLAND promised price reductions for these products, but insufficient quantities were delivered during the promotion periods. In a number of commercial outlets of both chains, the so-announced goods in the "sunflower oil" promotion are either not available at all, due to the exhaustion of the quantities even before the start of the promotional period, or the quantities delivered to the outlets were sold very quickly, in which case the visitors were not able to take advantage of the promotional terms.
The CPC analysis shows that in their advertising messages, the two retail chains made an explicit provision that the respective promotional conditions will be valid until the quantities of the respective product are exhausted, and that each customer can purchase a limited number of products from those of reduced price (specifically for KAUFLAND).
The CPC justifies its conclusion that there has been a violation of competition with the argument that, insofar as the choice of consumers has been made at the time of perceiving the promotional messages and after comparing the prices of identical products in competing retail chains, the traders were obliged to foresee sufficient quantities of the promotional products, to meet expected demand. Moreover, the promotion concerns a food product that is used daily in the household. There is a discrepancy between the promised sell of the product at a reduced price in the advertising messages and the actual fulfillment of the publicly made commitment.
The CPC also gives importance to the fact that promotional campaigns for various products, with different scope and duration of periods in reduction, and numerous other goods are offered at the same time in the retail stores. Even if the quantities of the desired product are out of stock, consumers would purchase other, albeit non-promotional, products that they need in the household because the decision to purchase a product from a specific retailer has already been made at an earlier point in time, prior to the visit in the site, based on the prices of the missing products. By their behavior of offering discounted food essentials, KAUFLAND and BILLA have already achieved their goal of diverting consumers from competing retailers.
According to the CPC, "promotion while supplies last" clauses could even act as a catalyst for consumers to make a faster purchase decision, but would not dissuade them from visiting a particular retailer's chosen store, as whether the quantities are exhausted, they could only find out in the store itself. Such a condition does not waive, nor reduce the responsibility of the two retail chains, and does not remedy the discrepancy in what was promised and what was provided to consumers. KAUFLAND and BILLA should have exercised the necessary care and secured sufficient quantities of the promotional products, but they did not take proper action in relation to the fulfillment of their promises.
Large retail chains sanctioned for misleading advertising of essential commodities

Oct. 06, 2022