November 2006 Bundesgerichtshof: Telefonwerbung gegenüber Gewerbetreibenden verboten - 20.11.2006 Pressebericht

2012, 2015, 2017, 2019, 2025 World Business Guide*

2020, 2022, 2029 Construct Data Publishers

Complaints to EASA from three companies in Israel concerning a direct mailing from Austria featuring a business directory. The mailing invited the recipient to confirm information already held about the company, but failed to make it clear that signing the form automatically constituted an order for an advertisement in the directory. The complainants considered the advertisement to be misleading. EASA transferred the complaints to the Austrian SRO, OWR, under the cross-border procedure. OWR confirmed that this advertiser had persistently disregarded the OWR's decisions against its advertising, and the case had therefore been transferred to the appropriate statutory authorities, who had taken enforcement action in respect of mailings within the EU and EEA. Following the enforcement action, the advertiser declared that they would refrain from sending further mailings from Austria. In the event of complaints being received, the advertiser stated that if the respective customer asserts to have been misled and has not already paid, no further claims will be raised. Complaints transferred to appropriate authorities. Case closed.

2021 World Business Guide*

* As the World Business Guide was using two different PO Boxes, one in the Netherlands and one in Spain, both self-regulatory organisations, the SRC and AUTOCONTROL, have investigated complaints against the business directory.

Report No. 45 - July - September 2009

1971 Netwerk Media Group (NMG)

Complaint from a Dutch company to the Dutch SRO, SRC, about a direct mailing which seemed to be a reminder of an invoice, but was in fact an offer to buy a domain name. The complainant considered the mailing to be misleading. As the advertiser was based in the UK, SRC transferred the case to the British SRO, ASA, under the cross-border procedure. The ASA adjudicated that the mailing was misleading. They noted that the mailing closely resembled an invoice and the advertiser did not make it sufficiently clear that it was a marketing communication. The mailing stated in small print that there was no obligation to pay, but the ASA considered that this could be easily overlooked and was not sufficient to remove the impression that the mailing was a genuine invoice, which it was not. The advertiser was informed that the ad should not appear in its current form again. Complaint upheld, case closed.

1977, 1978 Community Trade Marks and Designs Limited

Complaint from a legal representative on behalf of two Italian companies to the Italian SRO, IAP concerning a direct mailing from the UK featuring a trade mark directory. The mailing invited the recipient to confirm information already held about the trademarks of the company, but failed to make it clear that signing the form automatically constituted an order for an advertisement in the directory. The complainant considered the advertisement to be misleading. As the advertiser was based in the UK, IAP transferred the complaint to the British SRO, ASA, under the cross-border procedure. The ASA investigated the case and asked the advertiser to respond to the concerns of the complainant. The advertiser did not respond to the ASA enquiries. The ASA was concerned about the lack of response of the advertiser and apparent disregard of the code (CAP code clause 2.6 (Non-response)). Furthermore the ASA noted that the advertisement had the appearance of an official request for payment, although it stated in very small print that it was not a bill, but only a solicitation. The ASA concluded that the ad was likely to mislead the recipient and found it therefore in breach with CAP code clause 7.1. (Truthfulness). The advertiser was informed that the ad should not appear in its current form again. Complaint upheld, case closed.

2003 Med1Web

Complaint from a British company to EASA about a direct mailing from Portugal featuring a business directory. The mailing invited the recipient to confirm information already held about the company, but failed to make it clear that signing the form automatically constituted an order for an advertisement in the directory. The complainant considered the advertisement to be misleading. EASA transferred the complaint to the Portuguese SRO, ICAP, under the cross-border procedure. ICAP was unable to pursue the case as it was related to contractual issues, which are out of its remit. Complaint out of remit, case closed.

2004, 2009 Expo Guide

Complaints to EASA and the Irish SRO, ASAI, from a Finnish and an Irish company, concerning a direct mailing from Mexico featuring a business guide. The mailing invited the recipient to confirm information already held about their respective company, but failed to make it clear that signing the form automatically constituted an order for an advertisement in the directory. The complainants considered the advertisement to be misleading. As the advertiser was based in Mexico, the case could not be pursued within the EASA cross-border complaints system, as the Mexican SRO, CONAR, was not in EASA membership. CONAR, was nevertheless informed about the practices of the advertiser. Complaint not pursued, case closed.

2010, 2016 World Business Guide

Report No. 44 - April - June 2009

1973, 1975 Construct Data

Complaints to EASA from two companies in Israel concerning a direct mailing from Austria featuring a business directory. The mailing invited the recipient to confirm information already held about the company, but failed to make it clear that signing the form automatically constituted an order for an advertisement in the directory. The complainants considered the advertisement to be misleading. EASA transferred the complaint to the Austrian SRO, OWR, under the cross-border procedure. OWR confirmed that this advertiser had persistently disregarded the OWR's decisions against its advertising, and the case had therefore been transferred to the appropriate statutory authorities, who had taken enforcement action in respect of mailings within the EU and EEA. Following the enforcement action, the advertiser declared that they would refrain from sending further mailings from Austria. In the event of complaints being received, the advertiser stated that if the respective customer asserts to have been misled and has not already paid, no further claims will be raised.

1979 Med1Web

Complaint from a British company to EASA about a direct mailing from Portugal featuring a business directory. The mailing invited the recipient to confirm information already held about the company, but failed to make it clear that signing the form automatically constituted an order for an advertisement in the directory. The complainant considered the advertisement to be misleading. EASA transferred the complaint to the Portuguese SRO, ICAP, under the cross-border procedure. ICAP was unable to pursue the case as it was related to contractual issues, which are out of its remit. Complaint out of remit, case closed.

1955, 1959, 1962, 1970 Construct Data

Complaints to EASA from three companies in Israel and one in South Africa, concerning a direct mailing from Austria featuring a business directory. The mailing invited the recipient to confirm information already held about the company, but failed to make it clear that signing the form automatically constituted an order for an advertisement in the directory. The complainants considered the advertisement to be misleading. EASA transferred the complaint to the Austrian SRO, OWR, under the cross-border procedure. OWR confirmed that this advertiser had persistently disregarded the OWR's decisions against its advertising, and the case had therefore been transferred to the appropriate statutory authorities, who had taken enforcement action in respect of mailings within the EU and EEA; however, the Austrian authorities' remit did not extend to countries outside these areas. Complaints transferred to appropriate authorities. Case closed. 1960

1963, 1964 EU Company Directory

Complaint from companies in Greece and Lithuania to EASA, concerning a direct mailing from the Netherlands featuring a business directory. The mailing invited the recipient to confirm information already held about the company, but failed to make it clear that signing the form automatically constituted an order for an advertisement in the guide. The complainants considered the advertisement to be misleading. As the mailing originated in the Netherlands, EASA transferred the complaint to the Dutch SRO, SRC, for investigation. The SRC investigated the case and found out that the advertiser only used a PO Box in the Netherlands, but was operating from Nevis, West Indies. The SRC was therefore unable to pursue the case, but transferred it to the Dutch Fraud Support Centre, which uses such information to put pressure on the parties involved to end these practices. However, the Dutch SRO initiated discussions with the Dutch postal service, on the need to impose stricter requirements for the use of PO Boxes. Complaint transferred to appropriate authority, case closed.

1867 EU Company Directory

Complaint from the legal representative of a Swedish consumer to EASA, concerning a direct mailing from the Netherlands featuring a business directory. The mailing invited the recipient to confirm information already held about the company, but failed to make it clear that signing the form automatically constituted an order for an advertisement in the guide. The complainant considered the advertisement to be misleading. As the advertiser is based in the Netherlands, EASA transferred the complaint to the Dutch SRO, SRC, for investigation. The SRC was unable to investigate without a copy of the original advertisement, which the complainant was not able to provide. Case not pursued, case closed.

1832, 1833, 1926, 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1944, 1947, 1950 Construct Data

Complaints to EASA from ten companies in Israel concerning a direct mailing from Austria featuring a business directory. The mailing invited the recipient to confirm information already held about the company but failed to make it clear that signing the form automatically constituted an order for an advertisement in the guide. The complainants considered the advertisement to be misleading. EASA transferred the complaint to the Austrian SRO, OWR, under the cross-border procedure. OWR confirmed that this advertiser had persistently disregarded the OWR's decisions against its advertising, and the case had therefore been transferred to the appropriate statutory authorities, who had taken enforcement action for mailings within the EU and EEA, but whose remit did not extend to countries outside these areas. Complaints transferred to appropriate authorities. Case closed.

1883, 1895 EU Company Directory

Complaints from a Spanish consumer to the Spanish SRO, AUTOCONTROL, and of an Irish consumer to the Irish SRO, ASAI, about a direct mailing from the Netherlands featuring a business directory. The mailing invited the recipient to confirm information already held about the company but failed to make it clear that signing the form automatically constituted an order for an advertisement in the guide. The complainants considered the advertisement to be misleading. As the advertiser was based in the Netherlands, the Spanish and Irish SRO transferred the complaints to the Dutch SRO, SRC, under the cross-border procedure. The SRC investigated the cases and found the advertisement in breach of Art 7 of the NRC code (misleading advertisement). The advertiser was asked not to use the same approach again. Complaint upheld, case closed.

1937 EU Business Services Ltd

Complaint to the British SRO, ASA, from a British consumer concerning a direct mailing from the Netherlands featuring a business guide. The complainant considered the mailing misleading, because it appeared to be an official communication associated with the European Commission. The complainant objected to the use of official logos and trademarks, which he believed were used to mislead consumers.
As the advertiser used a Dutch P.O.Box, the ASA transferred the case to the Dutch SRO, SRC under the cross-border procedure. The SRC investigated the case and found that EU Business Services Ltd, which also operates under the name EU Company Directory, had a PO Box in the Netherlands, but no office, and was in fact operating from the West Indies. The SRC transferred the case back to the ASA and alerted the Dutch Fraud Support Centre. Complaint referred to appropriate authorities. Case closed.

1951 Euro Business Guide

Complaint from an Irish company to the Irish SRO, ASAI, about a direct mailing from the Netherlands featuring a Business Directory. The mailing invited the recipient to confirm information already held about the company but failed to make it clear that signing the form automatically constituted an order for an advertisement in the guide. The complainant considered the advertisement to be misleading. As the advertiser is based in the Netherlands, The Irish SRO ASAI transferred the complaint to the Dutch SRO, SRC, under the cross-border procedure. The SRC investigated the case and found that the advertiser had a PO box in the Netherlands, but no office, and was in fact operating from the West Indies. The SRC transferred the case back to the ASA and alerted the Dutch Fraud Support Centre. Complaint referred to the appropriate authorities. Case closed.

1867 EU Company Directory

Complaint from a lawyer, on behalf of a Swedish complainant, to EASA, about an allegedly misleading direct mailing from the Netherlands concerning an entry in a trade directory. EASA transferred the complaint to the Dutch SRO, SRC, for investigation. The SRC was unable to investigate without a copy of the original advertisement, which the complainant was not able to provide. Case not pursued, case closed.

1869, 1882, 1886, 1890, 1891, 1893, 1894, 1903, 1912, 1915, 1916, 1930, 1931 Construct Data Publishers

Complaints to EASA from 12 companies in Israel and one in the USA concerning a direct mailing from Austria featuring a business directory. The mailing invited the recipient to confirm information already held about the company but failed to make it clear that signing the form automatically constituted an order for an advertisement in the guide. The complainants considered the advertisement to be misleading. EASA transferred the complaint to the Austrian SRO, OWR, under the cross-border procedure. OWR confirmed that this advertiser had persistently disregarded the OWR's decisions against its advertising, and the case had therefore been transferred to the appropriate statutory authorities, who had taken enforcement action for mailings within the EU and EEA, but whose remit did not extend to countries outside these areas.
Complaints transferred to appropriate authorities. Case closed.

1879 European City Guide 2000

1885 Euro Business Guide

Complaint from an Irish company to the Irish SRO, ASAI, about a direct mailing featuring a Business Directory. The complainants were invited to update their company's information, but did not realize that by signing the form they were placing an order; they therefore considered the mailing misleading. As the advertiser was based in the Netherlands, the ASAI, transferred the complaint to the Dutch SRO ,SRC, under the cross border complaints procedure. SRC investigated the case and decided that the mailing was misleading and in breach of the code as the indication of the price and the fact that the recipient was placing an order by signing the form, were not made sufficiently clear. SRC asked Euro Business Guide not to advertise again in the same terms. Complaint upheld, case closed.

1738  EU Business Services Ltd

Complaint (alleged misleading) to the UK SRO, ASA, from a UK company, concerning a direct mailing from the Netherlands featuring a business guide.  The mailing invited the company to confirm information about the company which the advertiser already held.  However, signing the form constituted an order for  an advertisement in the guide.  The complainant maintained that this was not made sufficiently clear in the advertisement and consequently considered it  to be misleading.  ASA transferred the complaint to the Dutch SRO, SRC, under the cross-border procedure. Upon investigation, it emerged that the advertiser had only a PO Box in the Netherlands and was in fact based in the West Indies. Postal authorities in the Netherlands are currently investigating if the PO Box should be closed for abuse.
Complaint not pursued, case closed.

1834 - 1835 - 1836 - 1842 - 1844 - 1845 - 1856 Construct Data Publishers

Complaints (misleading) to EASA, from 7 companies in Israel concerning a direct mailing from Austria featuring a business guide.  The mailing invited the recipient to confirm information already held about the company but failed to make it clear that signing the form automatically constituted an order for an advertisement in the guide.  The complainants considered the advertisement to be misleading.  EASA transferred the complaint to the Austrian SRO, OWR, under the cross-border procedure.  OWR confirmed that this advertiser had persistently disregarded the OWR’s decisions against its advertising, and the case had therefore been transferred to the appropriate statutory authorities, who had taken enforcement action for mailings within the EU and EEA, but whose remit did not extend to countries outside these areas. 
Complaints transferred to appropriate authorities. Case closed.

1778 -1779-1780-1781-1782-1783-1788-1789-1790-1792-1800-1801-1802-1796 Construct Data Publishers

14 complaints (misleading) to EASA, from 14 companies - 11 in Israel, 2 in Poland, one in Belgium - concerning a direct mailing from Austria featuring a business guide.  The mailing invited the recipient company to confirm information about it by signing and returning a form.  However, signing the form automatically ordered an advertisement in the guide, and this fact was not made sufficiently clear. Respondents were subsequently pursued for payment.  The complainants found the advertisement to be misleading.  EASA transferred the complaint to the Austrian SRO, OWR, under the cross-border procedure.  OWR noted that this advertiser had persistently disregarded decisions against its advertising by the OWR, and therefore transferred the case to the appropriate authorities. 
Complaints transferred to appropriate authorities.  Case closed.

1786-1795 European City Guide   

Complaints (Misleading) received from two UK companies concerning a direct mailing from a Spanish company. The advertiser offered, for a fee, to place a subscriber’s company information in a 'European City guide' and invited the recipient to check the details already printed on the form, and then to sign the response. The complainants believed that the mailing was misleading because even when a response indicated no interest, the advertiser had treated it as an order. The complainant was subsequently asked for payment. Spanish regional competition authorities are already investigating the case.
Case transferred to appropriate authorities, case closed.

1793-1794 Nova Channel

Complaints (Misleading) to the EASA, from two French companies concerning a direct mailing from Switzerland featuring a business directory.   The advertiser offered to place subscribers’ company information in a business directory and invited the company to verify the company details already printed on the form, and then to sign the response. The complainant believed that the mailing was misleading because it was not made clear that returning the signed form automatically constituted an order. The complainant had subsequently been pursued for payment.  EASA informed the complainant that the Cantonal and Federal authorities in Switzerland has opened proceedings against this advertiser. 
Complaint transferred to appropriate authority. Case closed.

1739 – 1740 – 1742 – 1743 – 1744 – 1746 – 1747 – 1748 – 1749 – 1750 – 1751 – 1752 – 1753 – 1754 – 1755 – 1756 – 1762 – 1763 – 1764 – 1765 – 1766 – 1767 – 1768 – 1770 – 1771 – 1772 – 1773 – 1775  Construct Data Publishers

27 complaints (misleading) to EASA, from 27 companies - 19 in Israel, 6 in Sweden, one in Finland and one in South Africa - concerning a direct mailing from Austria featuring a business guide.  The mailing invited the recipient company to confirm information about it by signing and returning a form.  However, signing the form automatically ordered an advertisement in the guide, and this fact was not made sufficiently clear. Respondents were subsequently pursued for payment.  The complainants found the advertisement to be misleading.  EASA transferred the complaint to the Austrian SRO, OWR, under the cross-border procedure.  OWR noted that this advertiser had persistently disregarded decisions against its advertising by the OWR, and therefore transferred the case to the appropriate authorities. 
Complaints transferred to appropriate authorities.  Case closed.

1721  Nova Channel AG     
Complaint (Misleading) to the EASA, from a Polish company concerning a direct mailing from Switzerland featuring a business directory.   The advertiser offered to place subscribers’ company information in a business directory and invited the company to verify the company details already printed on the form, and then to sign the response. The complainant believed that the mailing was misleading because it was not made clear that returning the signed form automatically constituted an order. The complainant had subsequently been chased for payment.  EASA informed the complainant that the Cantonal and Federal authorities in Switzerland has opened proceedings against this advertiser. 
Complaint transferred to appropriate authority. Case closed.

1687- 1688 – 1689 1691 1692 1693 16941695 1696 1697 1698 1699  1703, 1704 1705 1706 1714 1715 1716   1717, 1718, 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 1728 1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1734  1741 Construct Data Publishers

Complaints (misleading) to EASA, from 34 companies in Sweden (11), Ireland (1), France (1) and Israel (21) concerning a direct mailing from Austria featuring a business guide.  The mailing invited the recipient to confirm information already held about the company but failed to make it clear that signing the form automatically constituted an order for an advertisement in the guide.  The complainants considered the advertisement to be misleading.  EASA transferred the complaint to the Austrian SRO, OWR, under the cross-border procedure.  OWR noted that the advertiser had persistently disregarded  the OWR’s decisions against its advertising, and therefore transferred the case to the appropriate authorities. 
Complaints transferred to appropriate authorities. Case closed.

1629 Nova Channel AG

Complaint (Misleading) to the Canadian SRO, ASC, from a Canadian company concerning a direct mailing from Switzerland featuring a business directory.   The advertiser offered to place subscribers’ company information in a business directory and invited the company to verify the company details already printed on the form, and then to sign the response. The complainant believed that the mailing was misleading because it was not clear that returning the signed form with approval of the company details automatically constituted an order. The complainant was consequently being asked for payment.  EASA transferred the complaint to the Swiss SRO, under the cross-border procedure. As the case had already been transferred to the authorities,the CSL informed the complainant that the Cantonal Police of Lucerne had opened proceedings. 
Complaint transferred to appropriate authority. Case closed.

1643 – 1644 - 1653 European City Guide

Complaints (Misleading) received from one Irish and two UK companies concerning a direct mailing from a Spanish company. The advertiser offered, for a fee, to place a subscriber’s company information in a 'European City guide' and invited the recipient to rectify details already printed on the form, and then to sign the response. The complainants believed that the mailing was misleading because even when a response indicated no interest, the advertiser had treated it an order. The complainant was consequently being asked for payment. Spanish regional competition authorities are already investigating the case.
Case transferred to appropriate authority. Case closed.

1648 United Media

Complaint (misleading) to the UK SRO, ASA, from a UK consumer, concerning a direct mailing from the Czech Republic featuring an international business and trade database on internet and on CD ROM. The complainant considered the advertisement misleading since it was presented as an invoice and targeted at businesses, apparently in the hope that they would pay. ASA referred the case to the Czech SRO, CRPR.  The CRPR had previously received complaints about this advertisement, in the form of a mailing which had been transferred and reviewed by the District Trade License Office (DTLO).  The DTLO did not uphold the previous complaint, as the mailing explicitly stated that it is an offer. 
Complaint not upheld. Case closed.

1655 to 1658 / 1660 to 1673 / 1675 to 1679 / 1682 / 1683 / 1687 to 1689 Construct Data Publishers

Complaints (misleading) to EASA, from 11 companies in Israel, 10 in Sweden,  and  companies in Hungary,  Finland, Ireland, the UK, the USA, a Switzerland,  Hong Kong and  Australia concerning a direct mailing from Austria featuring a business guide.  The mailing invited the recipient company to confirm information about it.  However, signing the form automatically ordered an advertisement in the guide, and this fact was not made sufficiently clear.  The complainants found the advertisement to be misleading.  EASA transferred the complaint to the Austrian SRO, OWR, under the cross-border procedure.  OWR noted that the advertiser had persistently disregarded decisions against its advertising by the OWR, and therefore transferred the case to the appropriate authorities. 
Complaints transferred to appropriate authority. Case closed.