Misleading advertising from Electricity providers in relation to subsidies for the payment of electricity bills provided by the state through the Energy Transition Fund, RAE and declares that the day after tomorrow, on Thursday, he will publish these cases on his website.

“Given that the subsidy for consumer energy costs in question is financed by TEM funds, i.e. public funds, and does not represent a discount provided by suppliers, in the context of their commercial policy, it should have been independent. Obviously, any reference, image, or inclusion of the amount of said government subsidy on Suppliers’ new invoices must be clearly identified as coming from the state.

Unfortunately, however, very recent advertising and communication tactics of electricity providers are characterized by vagueness and inaccuracy regarding the main elements of what looks like a “reduction”, “rebate” or alternative rebate” of the supply fee, as they obscure the fact that it is provided horizontally and equally to all consumers regardless of the supplier and instead represents a commercial privilege of a particular supplier.

In this regard, it is indicated that such tactics are clearly misleading, given that they may give consumers a false impression of the Supplier’s pricing policy. In essence, the concealment of the nature of the discount and/or its distorted or selective presentation undermines the right of the consumer to freely choose a supplier and supply goods, following reliable and transparent information. In addition, such deceptive tactics may provide some Suppliers with an unfair advantage, thereby disrupting healthy competition in the retail market. For the above reasons, these abuses grossly violate the existing framework.