Time-traveling prices that should empower consumers confuse a German judge

Jurisprudência

Imagine this situation. You are buying a pair of shoes. You are undecided between two models. They both cost 60 EUR, but is now discounted to 60 EUR and used to cost 80 EUR. You will likely opt for the discounted one. It looks like more value per money. Traders know this.

And unscrupulous traders take advantage of this. How? By increasing the price from, say, 70 EUR to 80 EUR for a short time and then telling you that the discount is of 20 EUR instead of 10 EUR.

For some time now, Portuguese law has tried to stop practices such as this with Article 5 of Decreto-Lei n.º 70/2007. Recently, the European legislator has essentially extended the idea to the whole Union by introducing a new provision in the Price Indication Directive (Directive 98/6/EC). The new Article 6a paragraph 1 and 2 recite as follows:

1. Any announcement of a price reduction shall indicate the prior price applied by the trader for a determined period of time prior to the application of the price reduction.

2. The prior price means the lowest price applied by the trader during a period of time not shorter than 30 days prior to the application of the price reduction.

A German judge found it difficult to apply this provision and asked for guidance from the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ). The judgment was rendered on 25 September 2024. The facts are these. Aldi, a well-known supermarket company, distributes weekly a booklet with commercial information. The consumers’ association of the Land of Baden-Württemberg, Germany, took issue with how the price of bananas and pineapples were displayed, as they considered it violating Article 6a.

We will focus on the display of the price of bananas, for simplicity. Following a practice common in trademark cases but new – as far as I can tell – in consumer law matters, the ECJ includes a picture of the advertisement in its ruling:

The writing in white means: ‘Previous sale price. Lowest price in the last 30 days: 1.29’.

In essence, Aldi claims that the information in white is sufficient to comply with Article 6a, even if the discount is calculated as a percentage of the ‘chronologically prior’ price. The consumer association disagrees and points out that the 2021 Interpretive Guidelines on Article 6a by the European Commission support their view.

The referring judge has the doubts that the text of the directive requires the more demanding interpretation, despite what the guidelines say. The Court of Justice of the European Union sides with consumers. The answer is convincing and predictable, as it relies on a well-established practice in the interpretation of EU consumer law.

First, the ECJ points out that the interpretation of a provision of EU law requires one to look at its literal meaning, its objectives, and the system of norms it belongs to. Second, the Court finds that the plain meaning of the provision does to solve the interpretive doubt raised by the German judge.

Third, once teleological and systematic considerations come into play, the answer becomes clear. The directive aims to empower consumers by providing them with reliable and transparent information about prices (Recital 12). This objective is part of ensuring a high level of consumer protection, enshrined in Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and 169 TFEU.

The interpretation proposed by the German judge would not be effective in protecting the interests of consumers. Therefore, the ECJ rejected it, confirming the consumers’ association view that Aldi’s conduct was not compliant. Thus, discounts must be calculated based on the ‘legal prior’ price as defined by Article 6a and not based on the ‘chronological prior’ price.

One point connected to Article 6a remains unclear to me. I wonder if Article 6a should not be interpreted as prohibiting displaying the ‘chronological prior’ price. After all, EU law deems it deceptive compared to the ‘legal prior’ price. I believe that, sooner rather than later, this question will be asked to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

This decision confirms that Article 6a has increased the level of transparency of a critical information such the final price. Price stability over time is a crucial element in this regard. Traders are free to adjust prices as often as they want, but should refrain from using this freedom to artificially increase the attractiveness of a price reduction.

The concept of a ‘reference price’ in consumer law is a novelty at first glance. Yet, this has an important predecessor in anti-usury laws. An often-used technique to fight usury is calculating a ceiling interest rate that can be legally charged. Rates about it are prohibited (with criminal sanctions).

The reference price of Article 6a is different in that it is based only on the prices offered by the specific trader. This concept represents a telling example of the two-fold challenge of consumer law and market law: a nuanced understanding of business practices must be coupled with ingenious regulatory solutions.

Regarding the relationship between EU ad national law, the decision illustrates an important point. A part of EU legal scholarship is very vocal about the vices of EU law, which is seen as systematically underperforming in comparison to national law. The present decision is an excellent example of the positive role of EU law: in comparison to the interpretation given by the ECJ, the German judge preferred a reduced level of consumer protection.

At the same time, the issue of the prior price is telling about another controversy regarding the EU-national relation. In fact, the Price Indication Directive is a minimum harmonization directive, which enabled Portugal to ‘experiment’ and find a solution earlier than the EU. Most probably, the Portuguese solution was actually transplanted by the EU in all Member States. Had the directive been a maximum harmonization one, or even a regulation, this dynamic from one Member State to the whole Union would not have been possible.

Considering that EU law has moved towards an increased use of maximum harmonization directives and regulations, there is indeed reason for concern about the loss of flexibility and regulatory innovation in the Union.

The matter of prices is particularly prominent in this regard. One of the main preoccupations in the digital economy is the use of personalized or surveillance prices in digital markets. As I argued elsewhere, the ‘legal prior’ price of Article 6a confirms that the law can (and arguably does) force traders to show personalized prices as variations of the impersonal price. In sum, to empower us, the consumers, the law can make prices through time. What else can we make it do? Imagination, not the sky, is the limit.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *