Oatly-domen - Om genomsnittskonsumentens påverkan av ”den dåliga stämningen i kyldisken”
(2017) LAGF03 20171Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Under hösten 2014 spreds den senare benämnda ”dåliga stämningen” bland Sveriges kyldiskar då branschorganisationen Svensk Mjölk Ekonomisk Förening (Svensk Mjölk) valde att stämma havredrycksföretaget Oatly AB (Oatly) för bland annat vilseledande och misskrediterande marknadsföring. Domen kom i november 2015 och fällde Oatly på de flesta punkter. Fram tills domen föll men även efter fick den svenska mjölkbranschen, däribland Arla, ta emot hård kritik för att inte vara transparanta med mjölkens framställningsprocess och en allt mer kritisk konsument märktes av. Det faktum att svenska konsumenter blivit allt mer kritiska fastställdes även i en hållbarhetsrapport från Svensk Handel under hösten 2016.
Syftet men denna uppsats är att genom... (More) - Under hösten 2014 spreds den senare benämnda ”dåliga stämningen” bland Sveriges kyldiskar då branschorganisationen Svensk Mjölk Ekonomisk Förening (Svensk Mjölk) valde att stämma havredrycksföretaget Oatly AB (Oatly) för bland annat vilseledande och misskrediterande marknadsföring. Domen kom i november 2015 och fällde Oatly på de flesta punkter. Fram tills domen föll men även efter fick den svenska mjölkbranschen, däribland Arla, ta emot hård kritik för att inte vara transparanta med mjölkens framställningsprocess och en allt mer kritisk konsument märktes av. Det faktum att svenska konsumenter blivit allt mer kritiska fastställdes även i en hållbarhetsrapport från Svensk Handel under hösten 2016.
Syftet men denna uppsats är att genom den rättsdogmatiska metoden undersöka hur det gällande konsumentskyddet inom marknadsrätten ser ut genom att dels kritiskt granska det aktuella rättsläget men även målet MD 2015:18 (Oatly-domen). Inom marknadsrätten är begreppet genomsnittskonsument från EU-rätten centralt då det är utifrån denna som marknadsföringen ska bedömas. Vid bedömningen av vad en genomsnittskonsument ska anses tåla vid marknadsföring ska konsumentskyddet vara högre vid mer rutinmässiga köp och lägre vid mer sällsynta men även priset ska beaktas. Av vikt för bedömningen är även hur nära inpå avtalsslutet som konsumenten nås av marknadsföringen. Dessa faktorer anser jag talar för ett högt skydd för genomsnittskonsumenten vid marknadsföring av livsmedelsprodukter.
I Oatly-domen där de flesta formuleringarna fälldes av MD med motivering att de var vilseledande eller misskrediterande anser jag att genomsnittskonsumenten getts ett om än högre skydd. Det vi dock kan se är ett högt tonläge på marknaden med motsvarande formuleringar som till exempel Gainomax ”Bananas are for monkeys” och Arlas ”Naturens egen sportdryck”. Med attityderna på marknaden i åtanke vill jag därför mena att det finns utrymme för ett klargörande då den allt mer kritiska konsumenten tycks ha ett oönskat varierande skydd beroende på vilka aktörer som finns på marknaden, vilka fall som tas upp till prövning och kanske även beroende på produktens faktiska innehåll. (Less) - Abstract
- During the fall of 2014 the Swedish Dairy Association sued the Swedish oat drink company Oatly. The already cold relationship between the two parties got even more tainted. The legal basis for the lawsuit was the way Oatly had chosen to market its oat drinks, which the Swedish Dairy Association found deceptive and discreditable. The judgment was announced in November 2015 with the Swedish Dairy Association as the winning part on most of the claims. Both before and after the judgment was announced, the Swedish milk industry, and especially the company Arla, received some bad criticism for not being transparent about the production process of milk. A much more critical average consumer was now a reality. This was also verified by the Swedish... (More)
- During the fall of 2014 the Swedish Dairy Association sued the Swedish oat drink company Oatly. The already cold relationship between the two parties got even more tainted. The legal basis for the lawsuit was the way Oatly had chosen to market its oat drinks, which the Swedish Dairy Association found deceptive and discreditable. The judgment was announced in November 2015 with the Swedish Dairy Association as the winning part on most of the claims. Both before and after the judgment was announced, the Swedish milk industry, and especially the company Arla, received some bad criticism for not being transparent about the production process of milk. A much more critical average consumer was now a reality. This was also verified by the Swedish Trade Federation in a sustainability report in the fall of 2016.
The purpose of this essay is to examine how current consumer protection is defined by using the legal dogmatic method and by critically reviewing both the current law and the judgment of the Oatly case. Within the market law, the European Union’s definition of the average consumer is a very important part since the assessment of the marketing should be made from the perspective of the average consumer. Consumer protection should be considered as more effective when combined with routine purchases and weaker when combined with infrequent purchases. The price of the product should also be a part of the assessment as well as the timing of the marketing. The closer to the purchasing decision the marketing reaches the consumer, the more effective protection is needed. With these factors in mind, it is my opinion that the level of consumer protection when marketing food products should be considered as high.
Most claims in the Oatly case were considered as deceptive and discreditable, which in my opinion is a way to recognize and maybe even increase the high level of protection the consumers have. Despite the high level of consumer protection, the market has a permissively attitude with slogans such as “Bananas are for monkeys” from Gainomax and “Nature’s own sports drink” from Arla. With these attitudes on the market in mind I want to claim that there is room for an elucidation. Especially since the average consumer seems to have a varying level of protection depending on which companies exist on the market, which cases are legally tested and maybe even depending on the content of the product. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8908094
- author
- Vegelius, Cecilia LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20171
- year
- 2017
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- EU-rätt, marknadsrätt, marknadsföring
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 8908094
- date added to LUP
- 2017-06-29 11:10:42
- date last changed
- 2017-06-29 11:10:42
@misc{8908094,
abstract = {{During the fall of 2014 the Swedish Dairy Association sued the Swedish oat drink company Oatly. The already cold relationship between the two parties got even more tainted. The legal basis for the lawsuit was the way Oatly had chosen to market its oat drinks, which the Swedish Dairy Association found deceptive and discreditable. The judgment was announced in November 2015 with the Swedish Dairy Association as the winning part on most of the claims. Both before and after the judgment was announced, the Swedish milk industry, and especially the company Arla, received some bad criticism for not being transparent about the production process of milk. A much more critical average consumer was now a reality. This was also verified by the Swedish Trade Federation in a sustainability report in the fall of 2016.
The purpose of this essay is to examine how current consumer protection is defined by using the legal dogmatic method and by critically reviewing both the current law and the judgment of the Oatly case. Within the market law, the European Union’s definition of the average consumer is a very important part since the assessment of the marketing should be made from the perspective of the average consumer. Consumer protection should be considered as more effective when combined with routine purchases and weaker when combined with infrequent purchases. The price of the product should also be a part of the assessment as well as the timing of the marketing. The closer to the purchasing decision the marketing reaches the consumer, the more effective protection is needed. With these factors in mind, it is my opinion that the level of consumer protection when marketing food products should be considered as high.
Most claims in the Oatly case were considered as deceptive and discreditable, which in my opinion is a way to recognize and maybe even increase the high level of protection the consumers have. Despite the high level of consumer protection, the market has a permissively attitude with slogans such as “Bananas are for monkeys” from Gainomax and “Nature’s own sports drink” from Arla. With these attitudes on the market in mind I want to claim that there is room for an elucidation. Especially since the average consumer seems to have a varying level of protection depending on which companies exist on the market, which cases are legally tested and maybe even depending on the content of the product.}},
author = {{Vegelius, Cecilia}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Oatly-domen - Om genomsnittskonsumentens påverkan av ”den dåliga stämningen i kyldisken”}},
year = {{2017}},
}