original

Philip Morris has contested in the cassation the penalty of the Federal Anti-Monopoly Service (FAS) for the SMS advertising

“Philip Morris Sales and Marketing”, which is one of the affiliated companies of the Philip Morris International in Russia, has filed a cassation to the legality of the FAS fine of 150 thousand rubles for the distribution of the SMS advertising, according to the files of the arbitration cases “Justice.”

October 9, 2015 – Arbitration Court of Moscow rejected the company’s claim to the Federal Antimonopoly Service. The Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal on January 25 upheld the decision of the first instance unchanged. These legal acts the company appealed in the Arbitration Court of the Moscow District.

Earlier FAS of Moscow Oblast received a complaint from an individual that he received an promotional SMS from “Marlboro”: “Hello, Cyril! Do not miss the chance to take part in an exciting adventure. All the fun kicks off start on April 14. Smoking kills”. This message, according to FAS was sent without the consent of an individual to receive advertising.

During the consideration of the issue, it was found that the distribution of this advertising violates the part of article 7, paragraph 8 of the law “On Advertising”, as expressed in the spread of tobacco advertising. Having assessed the arguments of advertising and individuals involved in the case, FAS Commission decided that the SMS-advertisement does not comply with the law on advertising.

The same conclusion was reached by members of the Expert Council on the application of legislation RF on advertising at FAS. In their opinion, the usage of words in SMS-message such as “Marlboro” and “Smoking kills” are aimed at drawing attention to tobacco products.

On the basis of the Commission’s decision 30 March 2015 FAS adopted a resolution on bringing «Philip Morris Sales and Marketing” to administrative liability and imposition of a fine in the amount of 150 thousand rubles for the distribution of advertising of tobacco products. The company appealed the decision in court.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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