The Federal Court has found that Energy Watch had engaged in a misleading advertising campaign for its energy price comparison service. From January to September 2011, Energy Watch had run ads on television, radio, and print that claimed to compare the rates of all energy retailers in an area. In fact, the advertisements had merely compared the rates of one’s current energy retailer with Energy Watch’s preferred suppliers–those retailers with whom Energy Watch had commercial agreements. Moreover, Energy Watch misled customers on how much they would be saving by switching to those preferred suppliers. Each switch generated a commission for Energy Watch.
Featured News
Meta Halts Commercial Terms Rollout After Publishers Raise Concerns in EU, UK
Oct 28, 2026 by
CPI
Nvidia’s $12.9 Billion Hugging Face Deal Draws Justice Department Questions
Oct 28, 2026 by
CPI
Rolls-Royce’s UltraFan Wins £2.5 Billion UK Framework Deal
Oct 28, 2026 by
CPI
Taiwan Blocks Grab’s $600 Million Foodpanda Deal, Citing Uber Ties
Oct 28, 2026 by
CPI
South Korea Expands Food Price-Fixing Probe to Four Major Instant Noodle Makers
Oct 28, 2026 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Exclusive Dealing
Oct 25, 2026 by
CPI
Exclusive Dealing Without Exclusivity: Screening Contracts, Loyalty Rebates, and the Limits of Antitrust Tests
Oct 25, 2026 by
David Martimort & Jérôme Pouyet
When Competition for Exclusivity Raises Prices: Rebates, Pricing Rules, and the Insulin Puzzle
Oct 25, 2026 by
Daniel P. O’Brien & Greg Shaffer
Why Leaving the Door Open Can Be (Much) Worse Than Closing It: Share-Based Requirements, Buyer-Specific Costs, and Foreclosure
Oct 25, 2026 by
Zhijun Chen & Greg Shaffer
Antitrust Chronicle® – EU Merger Guidelines
Oct 19, 2026 by
CPI