Federal Antimonopoly Service says IKEA’s advertising is unfair
13 February 2008 (09:13)
Sverdlovsk Region’s division of the Federal Antimonopoly Service detected some unfair advertising practices in IKEA International Group’s chain stores, the Service’s expert Svetlana Braun said to UrBC.
The Service received a complaint from a customer who borrowed 6,000 RUR for the period of ten months using IKEA’s credit card (backed up by Renaissance Capital Bank) at the end of 2006. This credit card was, in fact, part of IKEA’s New Year offer. However, the store’s advertisements failed to provide the borrowers with all the details and terms of the loans. As a result, the unfortunate customer ended up paying the additional monthly fees, so the payments came to 1,000 RUR rather than the declared 600 RUR despite the timely payments. Moreover, the borrower had to pay 1,700-ruble fine for delay in payment (the ad said nothing about the time it takes for the money to be transferred from an ATM to the bank’s account).
Sverdlovsk Region’s division of the Federal Antimonopoly Service took legal action against IKEA in November 2007, and the store was found guilty of violating the existing advertising laws.
The Service received a complaint from a customer who borrowed 6,000 RUR for the period of ten months using IKEA’s credit card (backed up by Renaissance Capital Bank) at the end of 2006. This credit card was, in fact, part of IKEA’s New Year offer. However, the store’s advertisements failed to provide the borrowers with all the details and terms of the loans. As a result, the unfortunate customer ended up paying the additional monthly fees, so the payments came to 1,000 RUR rather than the declared 600 RUR despite the timely payments. Moreover, the borrower had to pay 1,700-ruble fine for delay in payment (the ad said nothing about the time it takes for the money to be transferred from an ATM to the bank’s account).
Sverdlovsk Region’s division of the Federal Antimonopoly Service took legal action against IKEA in November 2007, and the store was found guilty of violating the existing advertising laws.
Embed to Blog | Subscribe to Newsletter |