Misleading advertisment

Today I logged in on the EVE website with my account, I noticed a eye catching red exclamation mark, I clicked on it, and I received an offer for a package on sale that didn’t exist before and that I can’t find anywhere else.

This is both an aggressive practice (red shiny exclamation mark) and a misleading one (sale for something that I couldn’t purchase before). I’m also pretty sure this is against a regulation of the European Union about misleading and comparative advertising.

As a customer and EU citizen this is extremely concerning to me. Is there any explanation that CCP is willing to officially deliver about this subject?
Thank you.

1 Like

No, there isnt. Youre a week or so late, probably missed the email too. Dont you have better things to be worrying about than being upset about an ad?

Don’t you have better things to do than simping for PA/CCP?

The OP has a legit complaint.

Mr Epeen :sunglasses:

I already bought it.

Its been all over the forums for the last week, been more than enough threads to complain in…literally several still on the front page.

For your information I didn’t receive any email from CCP regarding this. I also can’t see in the website any information regarding this pack or the “sale” itself. For example when did it start? When is it going to end?

Did CCP reply officially to violating European (and several other countries) regulations?
I can only see a topic discussing the issue of selling skill points, however the content of the package is not the problem I’m discussing here. Doesn’t matter if they are skills, skins, ships, or anything else. The issue here is aggressive and misleading advertising.

I think Iceland is not in the EU.

Disagreements regarding advertising practices must therefore be settled in the Thunderdome.

Iceland is part of the European Economic Area, beside that they are selling their product in the European market (in European countries), so they must respect the regulations.

Also, regulations aside (pretending they are not important), I question the ethic of this kind of advertising…

The difference is that I can buy the Omega subscription at any time full price.
In this case what does the discount compare to, when/how can you buy this package at the “full” price of 52.78€?

1 Like

What consumer protection statute is this in violation of?

Genuine question


Amending Directive (EU) 2019/2161 introduces a new article in Directive 98/6/EC regarding information to consumers about price reductions. Any announcement of a price reduction must clearly indicate the price previously applied by the trader (prior price). The prior price means the lowest price applied by the trader during a period of time not shorter than 30 days prior to the application of the price reduction.


Article 7
Misleading omissions 1. A commercial practice shall be regarded as misleading if, in its factual context, taking account of all its features and circumstances and the limitations of the communication medium, it omits material information that the average consumer needs, according to the context, to take an informed transactional decision and thereby causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision that he would not have taken otherwise.

Edit: More

Article 6
Misleading actions 1. A commercial practice shall be regarded as misleading if it contains false information and is therefore untruthful or in any way, including overall presentation, deceives or is likely to deceive the average consumer, even if the information is factually correct, in relation to one or more of the following elements, and in either case causes or is likely to cause him to take a transactional decision that he would not have taken otherwise:
(d) the price or the manner in which the price is calculated, or the existence of a specific price advantage;

Article 8
Aggressive commercial practices
A commercial practice shall be regarded as aggressive if, in its factual context, taking account of all its features and circumstances, by harassment, coercion, including the use of physical force, or undue influence, it significantly impairs or is likely to significantly impair the average consumer’s freedom of choice or conduct with regard to the product and thereby causes him or is likely to cause him to take a transactional decision that he would not have taken otherwise.

Regarding the last one, note that while no one from CCP pointed a gun at my head, you have to remember that CCP is the developer of the website site where a red exclamation mark drags my attention to a red “personal offer”, showing a misleading sale transaction. This to me falls into the “undue influence” case, but I am no lawyer.

I think youre reaching quite a lot in the context of things.

It was far from aggressive, it was a red notification icon, a not uncommon practice, leading you to a clearly displayed personal offer. It shows you exactly what you will get for the price, it couldnt be any clearer, 1.62m SP, there is nothing false or misleading about it, it shows what CCP consider the regular value, everything is right there in front of you to make a decision on the purchase.

While I dont like that they have done it for other reasons, I really dont see what you consider to be the problem with it in this context, especially after posting your EU rules that are very easy to dismiss when you break it down.

As a consumer, I have the right to be informed on how the sale price was calculated. This is pretty clear to me and I would like an official answer.

Not as misleading as this,

‘‘Last chance! Police SKINs are available in the New Eden Store for a limited time only - through until downtime this Tuesday, 25 June, 2019.’’

I am very confused by what the words ‘‘last chance’’ mean in this context & to a lesser but still significant extent ‘‘limited time only’’ & ‘‘until ‘specified date’.’’.

CCP is a very misleading ltd,c (Icelandic equiv), & by misleading I mean criminally fraudulent.

Id have to disagree there.

But in regards to the other matter, sure, if they havent done the usual work around that companies do on these things. Its totally realistic to expect them to dance around the law like Sofas Direct on Easter Sunday.

Ie they may have proof they did offer that stuff for sale unbundled.

You sounds like a fun person.

The type that everybody calls Karen. If you are going to nitpick about that… never order take away based on their picture.

1 Like

I agree. Presenting a package for a ‘discount’ price when the real undiscounted price has never been available is misleading and I’m glad there are laws against these kind of advertisements.

However, does anyone know whether this package has ever been presented for the undiscounted price?

Then instead of ranting about on the forums.

People need to complain at the proper place. They pretend to know enough to complain about it but wont actually log a complaint properly.

The proper place is to an ombudsman, FAQ - Make a Complaint - ASA | CAP or ect,

CCP will not listen to you but you may need to complain to them for a matter of service, I dunno you can read the link if you are bored. I’m off to play some other games more deserving of my time.