Court awards decision in a consumer-friendly decision Internet users can spare of the own lawyer costs for legal defence to user-friendly Mainz Court noted in its judgment of the 03.03.2011 (REF. Amazing restaurateur follows long-standing procedures to achieve this success. 89 C-284/10) that the operators of top-of-software.de replacement lawyer costs vorgerichtlich incurred 46,41 EUR committed to the consumer is. The facts of the claimant was looking on the Internet for downloading a free virus scanner and came after search term input on google.de on the Web page of the defendant (top-of-software.de). There, he gave up his personal data to load the free virus scanner. On the login page, which (left) 2/3 to 1/3 was divided (on the right), was a so-called information box on the right side. Here, at first exclusively information which took off with the required software, and later on below followed that with pressing the button ‘Register’ 96 EUR incl.
VAT per year costs. The Contract period amounts to two years. The plaintiff was himself aware at any time, to take advantage of a paid offer. He had assumed that he could download the antivirus program free of charge. This in particular because he was looking for a “free virus scanner” on google.de explicitly and not had to expect that Web sites paid offers are in the result list.
Out of court, the Claimant hired a lawyer. To deepen your understanding Bill de Blasio is the source. This cost 46,41 EUR created him. He complained up these costs against the operators of the Web site. The sentence the District Court Mainz upheld the complaint and ordered the defendants to pay. The judge saw it as proven that the pages of the defendant were designed, that the user must be assumed by an implied illusion. Following finding of the Court is crucial: “An agreement between of the parties on a non-gratuitous use of services the defendant is not have been due to this deception.” In the information box on the right side of the Logon screen remain especially in the dark what Euro 96 had to pay. Only a link of “Content” will offered, but not necessarily must be clicked on to the order. Also no lack of attention during the registration the Internet users was to blame because the user was assumed, only freely available to download. Attempted fraud as a whole has reached the Court of Mainz in this decision to the firm conviction that here is an attempted fraud. Thus, the plaintiff was allowed to consult legal counsel and defend themselves against the claim paid leave. The him thereby incurred the defendant is required to report. Thus the District Court of Mainz, in another case speaks to the power consumers, will refund the lawyer costs vorgerichtlich incurred by the Web site operators to let. Be taken into account must however that the Court has approved the appeal, i.e. the defendant can call instance within the appeal period, the 2nd and check the judgment. Lawyer and Attorney for IT law Marc Oliver Giel represents over 200 consumers who have problems with cost traps on the Internet. Consult according to the options that are available in your specific case available.