The Italian Antitrust Authority (AGCM) punished Techmania S.r.l., a tech e-commerce company – already penalised by the Authority in the past – having found it in breach of Articles 20, 24, 25(d) and 61 of the Italian Consumer Code, which deal with the prohibition of unfair and aggressive commercial practices against consumers (including the imposition of barriers by the trader to the exercise of consumers’ contractual rights) and grant consumers the right to terminate the contract and receive reimbursement if goods that they purchase via distance selling are not delivered within 30 days.
The proceeding started pursuant to dozens of customer complaints received by the Authority between June and September 2015, reporting the Company’s failure to meet reimbursement requests following the failed delivery of products that had been purchased online and paid for upfront.
Techmania defended itself by arguing that the number of complaints showed a decrease over time, that most of such complaints had been solved in the meantime and, in any event, that they only represented a marginal share of the company’s global business volume. It also said that it had set up an expensive customer care service which, while it was able to promptly notify customers in case of delays in deliveries, could not directly process any reimbursements, should they be required.
The Authority found these defences irrelevant and noted the unfairness of the company’s commercial practices. It pointed out that the company regularly engaged in selling goods that were neither in stock at the time of sale, nor ordered and shipped to consumers in a reasonable timeframe, finding that the number of occurrences showed this to be the consequence of “a huge organisational and managerial deficit“, and not just a temporary supply difficulty.
Full content: Lexology
Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.
Featured News
CVS Health Explores Potential Breakup Amid Investor Pressure: Report
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
DirecTV Acquires Dish TV, Creating 20 Million-Subscriber Powerhouse
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
South Korea Fines Kakao Mobility $54.8 Million for Anti-Competitive Practices
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
Google Offers Settlement in India’s Antitrust Case Regarding Smart TVs
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
Attorney Challenges NCAA’s $2.78 Billion Settlement in Landmark Antitrust Cases
Oct 3, 2024 by
nhoch@pymnts.com
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh