In bonprix (Case C-100/24), the CJEU was asked to clarify the meaning of ‘promotional offers’ under Art. 6(c) of the E-commerce Directive. According to this provision, any such offers must clearly outline the conditions for eligibility. The disputed practice was an advertising message that bonprix, an online trading company, put on its website: ‘Convenient purchase on invoice’. It was contested that this message is misleading as it leaves out the fact that such a payment arrangement is subject to a prior assessment of the consumer’s creditworthiness. It is thus necessary to establish whether the message on bonprix’ website is a ‘promotional offer’ in the first place – a concept that is not directly defined under the Directive.
First, according to a literal interpretation, ‘promotional offers’ can include ‘any form of communication by which a provider seeks to promote goods or services to the recipient by giving him or her an advantage’ (para 24), which is still rather broad.
Second, according to a contextual interpretation,
since Art. 6(c) of the E-commerce Directive included some illustrative examples
such as ‘discounts, premiums and gifts’, for ‘reasons of consistency’,
‘promotional offers’ must have ‘the characteristics common to’ these examples
(para 25). The CJEU outlined three such characteristics: the conferral of an
advantage that is
- objective,
i.e. not left to ‘the subjective assessment of that recipient’ (para 26),
- certain,
i.e. ‘does not depend on chance or selection’ (para 27, per the distinction
between ‘promotional offers’ under Art. 6(c) and ‘promotional competitions and
games’ under Art. 6(d)), and that is
- ‘capable
of influencing that recipient’s consumption behaviour’ (para 28).
In response to bonprix’ arguments, the CJEU added that ‘promotional offers’ are neither defined by ‘the existence of a substantial monetary advantage for its recipient’ nor by ‘its exceptional nature’ (paras 29-31). The form and extent of the advantage is ‘immaterial’ and may be ‘monetary, legal or mere convenience, such as to enable the recipient to gain time’ (para 32). In the context of the disputed practice, the CJEU highlighted some potential benefits of bonprix’ offer: the deferral of payment provides the consumer with ‘a cash advance’ and represents ‘a monetary advantage, albeit minimal’ (para 43); in the event of extinguishment of the contract due to withdrawal or termination, ‘the purchaser does not need to claim reimbursement of the price’ (para 44).
Third, according to a teleological interpretation, the CJEU confirmed that subjecting the disputed practice to Art. 6(c) of the E-commerce Directive can ‘contribute to a high level of consumer protection, without, however, entailing unreasonable economic burdens for service providers’ (para 34). By informing the consumer that the deferred payment option is subject to a creditworthiness test and thereby making the consumer realise that they may be refused the option, it ensures consumer protection ‘at all stages of contact between the provider and the recipient of a service’ (para 35). Finally, the CJEU also added that its interpretation of Art. 6(c) of the E-commerce Directive is fully compatible with the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (particularly its Art. 3(4) and its general prohibition of misleading practices) and the Consumer Rights Directive (particularly its Art. 6(8)).
The Court’s broad interpretation of ‘promotional
offers’ should be welcomed as a positive move to strengthen consumer protection
through information. It represents a more inclusive understanding of the factors
that drive consumers’ purchase decisions, in particular convenience. Of course,
it should also be borne in mind that the disputed practice in this case is in
any event a ‘commercial practice’ within the scope of EU law.
