Latest developments in European Client Regulation: Comparability web sites outdoors scope of comparative promoting: CJEU in HUK-Coburg (C‑697/23) – Cyber Tech

For
those that are looking out for good worth for cash, worth comparability
web sites are a go-to software. Whereas ‘comparative promoting’ is regulated by Directive 2006/114/EC,
it’s unclear whether or not comparability companies supplied by third-party web sites fall
inside its scope. The CJEU clarified this level in Case
C‑697/23.

The
case involved Check24, a web site that compares varied merchandise, together with
insurance coverage packages, by awarding scores based mostly on standards like worth. The
web site additionally allows, as an middleman, the conclusion of contracts between
clients and insurance coverage suppliers. HUK-Coburg, whose insurance coverage merchandise had been
listed on Check24, sued the platform for violating the objectivity requirement
underneath Artwork. 4(c) of Directive 2006/114/EC. Although the query pertains to the
interpretation of Artwork. 4(c), the CJEU as a substitute centered on the scope of the
Directive, particularly its definition of ‘comparative promoting’ underneath Article
2(c).

The
CJEU first recalled that the important thing ingredient of ‘comparative promoting’ is the
identification of ‘a competitor’ – both of the advertiser or of the marketed
items/companies. Thus, Check24 have to be a competitor of HUK-Coburg to fall underneath
the scope of the Directive (para 28). To evaluate this, the CJEU proposed ‘an
evaluation of the doable substitutability of the companies supplied
by the events […] so as to decide whether or not they function in the identical
market’ (para 34, emphasis added). Pending additional verification by the
referring courtroom, the CJEU identified that Check24 itself doesn’t present
insurance coverage companies however merely provides comparability and middleman companies, which means
that it provides non-substitutable companies to these of HUK-Coburg and operates
in a unique service market (para 37). The idea of ‘comparative
promoting’ underneath Article 2(c) thus doesn’t embrace such a web-based comparability
service or such a mere middleman service.

Whereas
it is smart that third-party comparability companies are usually not regulated as
comparative promoting between opponents, these companies are nonetheless topic
to different shopper safety devices, such because the Client Rights Directive
and Unfair Industrial Practices Directive, which, in keeping with the Fee,
stay under-enforced.