News

Consumer protection: State Consumer Rights Protection Authority in finding an infringement must clearly establish and disclose its factual basis; failing this, the respective part of the decision is to be set aside.

On 20 January 2026, the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania (SACL) partly upheld the appeal of UAB “Kesko Senukai Digital” (the Company) and annulled in part the decision of the State Consumer Rights Protection Authority (the Authority). The Court consequently reduced the fine imposed on the Company from EUR 2,200 to EUR 1,700.

The case concerned the Company’s pricing practices in its online stores, in particular the application of different prices to customers participating in the “SMART NET” loyalty programme and the use of discount codes. The Authority had concluded that those practices infringed national rules on price indication and consumer information.

As regards the first alleged infringement, the Authority considered that the display of a loyalty price alongside a regular price constituted a “price reduction announcement”, thereby triggering the obligation to indicate the reference price, namely the lowest price applied during the preceding 30-day period. It further identified a separate infringement relating to the use of discount codes.

The Court observed that the relevant provisions of the Civil Code transpose Directive 98/6/EC on consumer protection in the indication of the prices of products offered to consumers. It emphasised that, in interpreting national law adopted to implement EU directives, due regard must be had to EU law and to relevant interpretative guidance, including that issued by the European Commission.

In its assessment, the Court held that the Authority was correct in classifying the Company’s dual pricing practice as a price reduction announcement. In such circumstances, traders are required to comply with the obligation to indicate the prior price. No exception under EU law was found to be applicable.

However, the Court found that this part of the Authority’s decision was insufficiently reasoned and did not adequately establish the factual basis of the alleged infringement. That part of the decision was therefore annulled.

Regarding the part of the decision in which the Authority held that the Company failed to provide information about the main qualities of goods in the State language, the Court found that the Authority failed to establish which part of information was not provided. Consequently, the Court annulled that part of the decision too.

Administrative case No. eA-537-624/2026