sou · H9B317 · 2021-03-31 00:00:00 — Talan om påförande av sanktionsavgift för en överträdelse får inte tas upp till prövning, om överträdelsen omfattas av ett förbud som har förenats med vite enligt denna lag och talan om utdömande av vitet har väckts. Sank- tionsavgiften ska uppgå till lägst och högst tio pro- cent av näringsidkarens omsättning det närmast föregående räken- skapsåret. Om överträdelsen har skett under näringsidkarens första verksam- hetsår eller om uppgifter om årsomsättning annars saknas eller är bristfälliga får årsomsättningen uppskattas. Avgiften får i ett sådant fall fastställas till ett belopp i kronor motsvarande högst två miljo- ner euro. När sanktionsavgiften fastställs ska hänsyn tas till överträdelsens allvar med beaktande särskilt av dess art, varaktighet och omfattning. Dessutom ska beaktas åtgärder som näringsidkaren har vidtagit för att lindra eller avhjälpa den skada som en konsument har lidit, tidi- gare överträdelser som näringsidkaren har gjort sig skyldig till, samt, i den utsträckning det framgår, den vinst som näringsidkaren gjort eller förlust som undvikits genom överträdelsen. I gränsöverskridande fall ska hänsyn tas till sanktioner som påförts näringsidkaren i andra medlemsstater i EU ifall information om sådana sanktioner finns tillgänglig via den mekanism som inrättats genom och rådets förordning (EU) 2017/2394. Hänsyn ska också tas till andra försvårande eller förmildrande omständigheter. Avgiften ska få efterges om det finns synnerliga skäl för det. De föreslagna ändringarna innebär en tydligare och en mer enhetlig reglering inom EU när det gäller marknadsföring och information till konsumenter, speciellt när avtal ingås digitalt. Ändringarna be- döms underlätta och leda till kostnadsbesparingar framför allt för företag som bedriver e-handel. bör regleringen kunna leda till bättre konkurrens och lägre priser för konsumenter. Förslagen innebär även ett stärkt sanktionssystem vid överträdel- ser av det marknadsrättsliga regelverket. Detta kommer att verka avskräckande för företag som inte följer reglerna och gynna seriösa företag. För företag kan det initialt finnas ett visst behov av utbildnings- insatser och anpassning av marknadsföring och avtalsvillkor. Det be- döms medföra begränsade kostnader i ett inledande skede. Förslagen leder inte till några ökade kostnader för det allmänna och bedöms inte ha någon påverkan på jämställdheten mellan kvinnor och män. Directive (EU) 2019/2161 of Parliament and of the Council of amending Council Directive 93/13/ EEC and Directives 98/6/EC, 2005/29/EC and 2011/83/EU of Parliament and of the Council as regards the better en- forcement and modernisation of Union consumer protection rules (the amending directive) was adopted on . The Directive has to be implemented in national law by . The background to the Directive is a review of the consumer law framework carried out by Commission (the Com- mission) in 2016–2017. In connection with the review it was noted that the efficiency of the Union’s consumer protection legislation was being jeopardised by a lack of awareness among both traders and consumers of consumers’ rights and that more frequent use could be made of possibilities of obtaining compensation. There were also deficiencies in national law regarding really effective and propor- tionate penalties to deter from, and impose penalties for, infringe- ments in the Union. In addition, a number of areas were identified where the current rules needed to be modernised and adapted on account of the continuous digitalisation of the consumer market. The purpose of the amending directive is to address the deficiencies identified and to modernise and adapt the consumer law framework in the EU to the increase in digitalisation. The Inquiry’s remit has been to consider how to implement the Directive in . Its remit has included analysing the relation- ship between Swedish law and the Directives and proposing neces- sary statutory amendments and other measures. Modernised provisions on unfair marketing practices In order to implement the amendments to Directive 2005/29/EC the Inquiry proposes some amendments to the Marketing Practices Act (2008:486), MPA. For instance, we propose introducing a provision to the effect that it is prohibited to present a good as being identical to a good being marketed in other EU Member States even though there are significant differences in the composition or characteristics of the goods, unless this is justified by legitimate and objective factors. A new provision is also proposed about invitations to purchase. The provision means that in the case of an invitation to purchase on an online marketplace, the trader providing the online marketplace has to provide information as whether or not the person offering a product is a trader, based on that person’s information about this. In addition, a new provision is proposed about the ranking of products. A trader who provides consumers with the possibility to search digitally for products offered will have to provide information about the criteria that primarily determine the ranking of the pro- ducts presented and their importance as opposed to other criteria. In addition, a new provision is proposed about consumer reviews. A trader who provides access to consumer reviews of products will have to provide information about whether the trader ensures that the reviews originate from consumers who have used or purchased the products and in that case how this is done. The amending directive amends annex 1 to Directive 2005/29/ EC, the ‘blacklist’, and introduces four new points containing prac- tices that shall be considered unfair in all circumstances. Under the first point introduced, it is unfair to provide search results in re- sponse to a consumer’s online search query without clearly disclos- ing any paid advertisement or payment specifically for achieving higher ranking of products within the search results. The second point introduced means that it is unfair to resell events tickets to consumers if the trader acquired them by using automated means to circumvent any limit imposed on the number of tickets that a person can buy or any other rules applicable to the purchase of ticket. Two points are also added concerning consumer reviews. According to these points, it is unfair to state that reviews of a product are sub- mitted by consumers who have actually used or purchased the pro- duct without taking reasonable and proportionate steps to check that they originate from such consumers. It is also unfair to submit or commission another legal or natural person to submit false con- sumer reviews or endorsements, or misrepresenting consumer reviews or social endorsements, in order to promote products. The new points apply automatically as Swedish law as of the date when the amending directive begins to apply, which is 28 2022. So no amendment to the MPA is needed to implement them in Swedish law. Information about price reductions The Inquiry proposes introducing a new provision on price reduc- tions in the Price Information Act (2004:347), the . The provi- sion means that information that the price of a product has been reduced also has to indicate the prior price that applied prior to the reduction. The prior price means the lowest price that applied to the product during the 30 days immediately prior to the price reduction. When the price reduction has been progressively increased during this period, the prior price instead means the price that applied before the first price reduction. The obligation to provide informa- tion about price reductions will not apply to goods that are liable to deteriorate or expire rapidly. Modernised provisions on distance contracts and off- premises contracts In order to implement the amendments to Directive 2011/83/EU the Inquiry proposes some amendments to the Distance and Act (2005:59), the DCA. The proposal means that the scope of Chapter 2 of the DCA is amended to apply to contracts under which a trader transfers or grants movable property to or performs a service for a consumer where the consumer is placed under an obligation to pay. The Chapter will also apply to contracts for the supply of digital content that is supplied in some other way than on a tangible medium and contracts for the performance of a digital service if the contract does not place the consumer under an obligation to pay, but the consumer has to supply their personal data, except when they are processed by the trader solely to comply with legal requirements or to be able to fulfil the agreement. The amendments mean, in practice, that contracts for gifts and free services will no longer be covered by the Chapter. The Inquiry also proposes expanding the trader’s obligation to provide the consumer with information in certain ways. In addition to information about their email address, the trader will also have to inform the consumer about other means of communication via the internet provided by the trader that enable the consumer to preserve information in a readable and enduring form. The trader will also have to provide information about whether the price has been personalised based on automated decision-making. In addition, the trader will have to provide information about the functionality of goods with digital elements, digital content or a digital service, in- cluding technical protection measures. Finally the trader will have to provide information about compatibility and interoperability of goods with digital elements, digital content and digital services to the extent that the trader is aware of or can reasonably be expected to be aware of this. The Inquiry also proposes introducing a new provision in the DCA regulating what information a trader providing an ‘online marketplace’ must provide the consumer with before a contract is concluded in that marketplace. In the Inquiry’s assessment, some provisions in the DCA regu- lating the right of withdrawal need to be amended to bring them into conformity with the Directive. The proposals mean that a right of withdrawal will not apply to contracts regarding a digital service that has been performed where the consumer is not placed under an obligation to pay. We also propose that a right of withdrawal should not apply to contracts for the supply of digital content supplied in some other way than on a tangible medium where the consumer is not placed under an obligation to pay. In the case of contracts that place the consumer under an obligation to pay, the right of with- drawal will not apply if the consumer has expressly consented to beginning the supply and has agreed, by doing so, that there is no right of withdrawal and the trader has provided a confirmation of the contract in accordance with Section 4 or a copy of the contract or a confirmation of the contract in accordance with Section 5, sec- ond paragraph. The Inquiry proposes that should make use of the pos- sibility of exempting certain repair services from the right of with- drawal. Under our proposal, a right of withdrawal will not apply to a service that has been performed and that places the consumer under an obligation to pay, if the consumer has specifically requested a visit from the trader for the purpose of carrying out a repair and the performance of the service has begun with the consumer’s prior express consent. Some amendments are also proposed in order to clarify the parties’ obligations to one another when the consumer exercises their right of withdrawal concerning a contract for the supply of digital content or digital services. In the Inquiry’s assessment, the period for expiry of the right of withdrawal should not be extended for contracts concluded in the context of unsolicited visits by a trader to a consumer’s home or excursions organised by a trader. Information in the context of consumer contracts concluded at a trader’s business premises In the case of consumer contracts concluded at a trader’s business premises, we propose that the trader should, before a contract is con- cluded, provide the consumer with information about the functio- nality not only of digital content but also of goods with digital ele- ments and digital services, including technical protection measures. We also propose inserting a provision in the MPA to the effect that the trader will have to provide information about compatibility and interoperability of goods with digital elements, digital content and digital services to the extent that the trader is aware of or can rea- sonably be expected to be aware of this. In a corresponding way to the obligation to provide information under the DCA, the Inquiry proposes that the obligation to provide information under Section 22 a of the MPA should not apply to contracts for gifts and free services either. Expanded possibilities of imposing market disruption charges The Inquiry proposes that the possibility of imposing market dis- ruption charges should be expanded to cover infringements of the general in the MPA, the new provisions that the Inquiry pro- poses inserting in the MPA, the provisions about unsolicited adver- tising, information about warranties and information before enter- ing into a consumer contract. The proposals thus mean that the possibility of imposing a charge will apply to infringements of the MPA in general. The expanded possibility of imposing market disruption charges for infringements of the general in the MPA entails certain editorial consequential amendments to the Social Insurance Code (2010:110), the Radio and Television Act (2010:696), the Alcohol Act (2010:1622) and the Tobacco and Act (2018:2088). The Inquiry proposes removing the upper fixed monetary limit for the market disruption charge. In the cases where the annual turn- over is estimated, the charge may be set at an amount in Swedish kronor corresponding to at most million. The upper limit of ten per cent of the trader’s annual turnover is retained, as is the lower limit of 000. Amendments to the Act are also proposed in order to clarify the assessment of the size of the market disruption charge. The text of the Act should state that account should be taken of how serious the infringement is. Particular consideration should be given to the nature, duration and scope of the infringement. In addition, account should be taken of measures that the trader has taken to mitigate or remedy the damage suffered by a consumer or another trader and of previous infringements committed by the trader. To the extent that it appears, consideration should also be given to the profit the trader has received as a result of the infringement of the rule or the costs that have been avoided. In cross-border cases account should also be taken of penalties that may have been imposed on the trader in other EU Member States in cases when information about these penalties is available via the mechanism established through Regulation (EU) 2017/2394 of Parliament and of the Council. Consider- ation should also be given to other aggravating or extenuating cir- cumstances. The Inquiry proposes that an action for the imposition of a market disruption charge for an infringement may not be considered if the infringement is covered by a prohibition or an injunction that has been combined with a fine under this Act and an action for the imposition of the conditional financial penalty has been brought. The Inquiry also proposes that a possibility should be introduced of imposing a market disruption charge for infringements of the provisions in Chapter 2, Sections 2–5 of the DCA on a trader’s obli- gation to provide information. The same applies to infringements of the provisions on a trader’s obligation to provide information in the case of contracts for financial services and financial instruments in Chapter 3, Sections 3–5 of the DCA. The proposals also mean that it will be possible for infringements of the to lead to the imposition of market disruption charges. Provisions on penalty charges in the Act (1994:1512) In order to implement the amendments to Directive 93/13/EEC, the Inquiry proposes introducing provisions on penalty charges in the Act (1994:1512), the CCA. The Patent and Market Court may, on the application of the Consumer Ombudsman, order that a trader shall pay a penalty charge if the trader or someone else who is acting on behalf of the trader has intentionally or through negligence used a contract term that is unreasonable in view of price and other circumstances. If the Consumer Ombudsman decides, in a particular case, not to bring an action for a penalty charge, an association of traders should be able do so. When assessing whether a penalty charge should be imposed, account should be taken of how serious the infringement is. Partic- ular consideration should be given to the nature, duration and scope of the infringement. An action for the imposition of a penalty fee for an infringement may not be considered, if the infringement is covered by a prohibition that has been combined with a fine under this Act and an action for the imposition of the conditional financial penalty has been brought. The penalty charge should be at least SEK 10 000 and at most 10 per cent of the trader’s turnover in the imme- diately preceding financial year. If the infringement took place during the trader’s first year of business or if information about their annual turnover is otherwise not available or is deficient, the amount of the annual turnover may be estimated. In such a case, the charge may be set at an amount in Swedish kronor corresponding to at most million. When the penalty charge is set, account should be taken of how serious the infringement is. Particular consideration should be given to the nature, duration and scope of the infringement. In addition, account should be taken of measures that the trader has taken to mitigate or remedy the damage suffered by a consumer, previous in- fringements committed by the trader and, to the extent that it ap- pears, the profit the trader has made or the loss that has been avoided through the infringement. In cross-border cases consideration should also be given to penalties imposed on the trader in other EU Member States in cases when information about these penalties is available via the mechanism established through Regulation (EU) 2017/2394 of Parliament and of the Council. Consideration should also be given to other aggravating or extenuating circumstances. It should be possible to waive the charge if there are exceptional reasons to do so. The proposed amendments mean clearer and more uniform regula- tion in the EU concerning marketing and information to consumers, especially when contracts are concluded digitally. The assessment made is that the amendments will facilitate and lead to cost savings especially for companies conducting e-commerce. In the long term this regulation ought to be able to lead to better competition and lower prices for consumers. The proposals also mean a stronger system of penalties for in- fringements of the market law framework. This will have a deterrent effect on companies that do not follow the rules and will, over time, benefit serious companies. For companies, there may initially be a certain need to arrange training and to adapt their marketing and contractual terms and con- ditions. This is only expected to result in limited costs in an intro- ductory phase. The proposals do not lead to any cost increases for public author- ities and are not judged to have any impact on gender equality. Vid tillämpning av denna lag ska ett avtalsvillkor anses oskä- ligt om det innebär att konsu- menten är hänvisad till att använda ett telefonnummer med förhöjd taxa för att ta kontakt med när- ingsidkaren per telefon med an- ledning av ett mellan dem in- gånget avtal. 1.1Förslag till lag om ändring i lagen (1994:1512) om avtalsvillkor i konsumentförhållanden Härigenom föreskrivs1 i fråga om lagen (1994:1512) om avtalsvillkor i konsumentförhållanden dels att 3 a § ska ha följande lydelse, dels att det ska införas åtta nya paragrafer, 9 c–9 j §§, av följande lydelse. Vid tillämpning av 3 § ska ett avtalsvillkor anses oskäligt om det innebär att konsumenten är hän- visad till att använda ett telefon- nummer med förhöjd taxa för att ta kontakt med näringsidkaren per telefon med anledning av ett mellan dem ingånget avtal. 1Jfr och rådets direktiv /2161/EU av om änd- ring av rådets direktiv /13/EEG och och rådets direktiv /6/EG, 2005/29/EG och 2011/83/EU vad gäller bättre upprätthållande och modernisering av unionens konsumentskyddsregler. 2Senaste lydelse 2014:13. Patent- och marknadsdomsto- len får på talan av Konsument- ombudsmannen besluta att en näringsidkare ska betala en sank- tionsavgift, om näringsidkaren eller någon som handlar på närings- idkarens vägnar uppsåtligen eller av oaktsamhet har använt ett avtalsvillkor som med hänsyn till pris och övriga omständigheter är oskäligt mot konsumenter. Om Konsumentombudsman- nen i ett visst fall beslutar att inte föra talan om sanktionsavgift, får en sammanslutning av närings- idkare väcka en sådan talan. Avgiften tillfaller staten. Vid prövningen av om en sanktionsavgift ska påföras ska det beaktas hur allvarlig överträdelsen är. Särskild hänsyn ska tas till över- trädelsens art, varaktighet och om- fattning. Talan om påförande av sank- tionsavgift för en överträdelse får inte tas upp till prövning, om över- trädelsen omfattas av ett förbud som har förenats med vite enligt denna lag och talan om utdöm- ande av vitet har väckts. Sanktionsavgiften ska fastställas till lägst och högst av näringsidkarens om- sättning det närmast föregående räkenskapsåret. Om överträdelsen har skett under näringsidkarens första verk- samhetsår eller om uppgifter om årsomsättning annars saknas eller är bristfälliga, får årsomsättningen uppskattas. Avgiften får i ett så- dant fall fastställas till ett belopp i kronor motsvarande högst två mil- joner euro. När sanktionsavgiften fastställs ska hänsyn tas till 1.överträdelsens allvar med be- aktande särskilt av dess art, var- aktighet och omfattning, 2.åtgärder som näringsidkaren har vidtagit för att lindra eller avhjälpa den skada som en konsu- ment har lidit, 3.tidigare överträdelser som näringsidkaren har gjort sig skyl- dig till, 4.i den utsträckning det fram- går, den vinst som näringsidkaren har gjort eller förlust som und- vikits genom överträdelsen, 5.i gränsöverskridande fall, sanktioner som har påförts när- ingsidkaren i andra medlems- stater i Europeiska unionen, ifall information om sådana sanktio- ner finns tillgänglig via den meka- nism som inrättats genom Europa- parlamentets och rådets förordning (EU) 2017/2394 av den 12 de- cember 2017 om samarbete mel- lan de nationella myndigheter som har tillsynsansvar för konsument- skyddslagstiftningen och om upp- hävande av förordning (EG) nr 2006/2004, och 6.andra försvårande eller för- mildrande omständigheter. Avgiften får efterges om det finns synnerliga skäl för det. Sanktionsavgiften ska betalas till Kammarkollegiet efter det att domen har fått laga kraft eller den som anges i domen. Om avgiften inte betalas inom den tid som anges i första stycket ska Kammarkollegiet lämna den obetalda avgiften för indrivning. Bestämmelser om indrivning finns i lagen (1993:891) om indrivning av statliga fordringar m.m. Vid indrivning får verkställighet enligt utsökningsbalken ske. En sanktionsavgift får dömas ut bara om stämningsansökan har delgetts den som anspråket riktar sig mot från det att överträdelsen upphörde. En sanktionsavgift faller bort om domen inte har kunnat verk- ställas från det att den fick laga kraft. För att säkerställa ett anspråk på sanktionsavgift får domstolen besluta om kvarstad. I ett sådant fall tillämpas bestämmelserna i 15 kap. om kvar- stad för fordran. 1.Denna lag träder i kraft . 2.Äldre bestämmelser gäller för avtalsvillkor som använts före ikraftträdandet.