Post by shakhar24 on Feb 28, 2024 4:25:11 GMT -3
Chamber III, Contentious-Administrative, of the Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal filed by Mediaset against a ruling of the National Court that confirmed the sanction of , euros imposed by the National Markets and Competition Commission in July , for the inclusion of covert commercial advertising in the television series. The ruling of the National Court considered that the broadcast on the FDF channel of the episode titled "an anniversary, a toupee and a tupper-sex meeting" of the series "La que se cerca" , in and , represented a violation of the General Law of Audiovisual Communication, which prohibits covert commercial advertising, since it has been considered that there was a clear advertising purpose, as the intention to promote the acquisition by viewers of erotic articles of a certain brand was evident.
Mediaset appealed to the Supreme Court and alleged, among other things, that the content was marked as advertising placement at the beginning and end of the program and during breaks, so there was no intention to hide advertising content, and C Level Executive List therefore the budget did not apply. of covert advertising. The images reflected in the viewing record contain an evident surreptitious promotional content for the brand's products. The Supreme Court rejects Mediaset's thesis because it would mean avoiding “the clear distinction that exists, from the perspective of European Union Law and State Law, between product presentation and covert advertising.” The high court indicates that, in the case examined, the prohibition of covert advertising has been violated, "since the images reflected in the viewing record contain an obvious surreptitious promotional content for the brand's products.
And in general, the Chamber establishes as a doctrine that "in those cases in which the requirements relating to warning the viewer are met, it may be considered infringing conduct when from the nature or characteristics of the advertising messages issued it can be inferred that it is not of a mere presentation of the goods or services to the extent that the promotional purpose aimed at the acquisition of the product by the public is prominent and misleads them about the nature of the presentation. The Court's ruling, now confirmed, highlighted that in the chapter of the series on which the sanction is based, a wide variety of erotic products were presented that were related to a certain brand and its website where they could be purchased, and that the images clearly showed an advertising purpose, with the risk of causing error in consumers, inclining them surreptitiously, not consciously, to acquire the products of said brand, through the promotion of products "whose benefits are exposed, which are related and are confused with the theme of 'tupper sex' discussed in said chapter.
Mediaset appealed to the Supreme Court and alleged, among other things, that the content was marked as advertising placement at the beginning and end of the program and during breaks, so there was no intention to hide advertising content, and C Level Executive List therefore the budget did not apply. of covert advertising. The images reflected in the viewing record contain an evident surreptitious promotional content for the brand's products. The Supreme Court rejects Mediaset's thesis because it would mean avoiding “the clear distinction that exists, from the perspective of European Union Law and State Law, between product presentation and covert advertising.” The high court indicates that, in the case examined, the prohibition of covert advertising has been violated, "since the images reflected in the viewing record contain an obvious surreptitious promotional content for the brand's products.
And in general, the Chamber establishes as a doctrine that "in those cases in which the requirements relating to warning the viewer are met, it may be considered infringing conduct when from the nature or characteristics of the advertising messages issued it can be inferred that it is not of a mere presentation of the goods or services to the extent that the promotional purpose aimed at the acquisition of the product by the public is prominent and misleads them about the nature of the presentation. The Court's ruling, now confirmed, highlighted that in the chapter of the series on which the sanction is based, a wide variety of erotic products were presented that were related to a certain brand and its website where they could be purchased, and that the images clearly showed an advertising purpose, with the risk of causing error in consumers, inclining them surreptitiously, not consciously, to acquire the products of said brand, through the promotion of products "whose benefits are exposed, which are related and are confused with the theme of 'tupper sex' discussed in said chapter.