17.3.2020

Capitalising on Fear Prohibited in Marketing

The outbreak of COVID-19, or the coronavirus, has been declared a pandemic, and its impacts are being felt in every corner of society. Unfortunately, this public health emergency is being taken advantage of in the form of questionable product marketing.

In response to improper marketing, tech giants such as Google, Amazon and Facebook have taken action voluntarily and have to date already removed tens of thousands of ads and posts seeking to profit from people’s fear and spread disinformation. In Finland, online marketplace Tori.fi has banned the sale of face masks and disinfectants as well as advertisements claiming that a product could protect against or prevent coronavirus infections or stop the spread of the virus.

Online marketplaces and tech companies have taken the initiative in championing responsible marketing and ensuring the availability of correct information in this crisis. From a lawyer’s perspective, this active social role taken by various companies is a voluntary and advance filtering by these companies of marketing that could be deemed illegal.

Prohibition of Unfair Marketing and Inappropriate Practices Seeks to Protect Consumers

The Consumer Protection Act states that no conduct that is inappropriate or otherwise unfair from the point of view of consumers shall be allowed in marketing.

Marketing is considered unfair if it is clearly in conflict with social values. The unfairness of marketing is assessed by taking into account all of the circumstances of each individual case, so it is an overall case-by-case assessment. There is no doubt that the current public health emergency would affect this assessment.

Marketing is considered inappropriate if it violates generally accepted business behaviour and the marketing clearly undermines the ability of consumers to make a reasoned purchasing decision or other decision relating to consumer goods. This assessment requires that the marketing would lead to a consumer making a decision that they would not have made without the behaviour. If marketing is targeted at a group that is particularly susceptible to influence, the inappropriateness of the marketing will be assessed from the perspective of this group.

Marketing does not have to have factually led to a consumer buying goods or services and the behaviour does not have to be proven to have caused concrete harm or damage to a consumer for it to be found inappropriate. In this case, a purchasing decision does not just mean whether the consumer purchases goods or services, and includes, e.g. the prices and other conditions under which they buy the commodity.

For example, Amazon has removed over a million products that were misleadingly marketed as preventing coronavirus infection or that had extortionate prices, and Facebook and its subsidiaries announced that they are blocking the advertising of face masks entirely.

Market Products Truthfully

The law prohibits marketing that provides false or misleading information. Specifically, this prohibition means that the key information on a commodity must be true, and information that is true in and of itself cannot be presented in a misleading manner.

So, for example, marketing face masks as protection against the epidemic is clearly misleading, as scientists and medical professionals have been clear that wearing a face mask will not protect a healthy person from infection. By contrast, face masks are recommended for people who have already been infected, as they could prevent them from spreading the infection.

Despite this people have been stockpiling face masks around the globe, and prices have gone through the roof. This has been a cause for concern, for example, in the United States, where face masks have been aggressively marketed to consumers, leading to an explosion in demand. At worst, this could lead to healthcare personnel running out of masks, which would place society at large at risk.

Responsible Marketing and Information Are Key in a Crisis

In a crisis, the marketing, decision making and publication of decisions by companies have a major impact on whether a company ultimately incurs goodwill or badwill.

For example, Google’s CEO Sundar Pichai published a release stating that Google is approaching the situation responsibly, fully aware that many rely on Google’s search engine every day. The company announced that it is combating false information, e.g. by directing searches relating to the coronavirus primarily to the sites of the WHO and national authorities and by removing all advertisements capitalising on the epidemic from Google Ads.

It is a good idea to be particularly careful even if your business does not revolve around face masks. For example, if you are marketing nutritional supplements or other health products, unjustified claims that your product may curb the symptoms of coronavirus or help protect against it would very likely be considered, inter alia, misleading and both unfair and inappropriate behaviour. In the current circumstances, this could also happen if your marketing excessively emphasiseas the disinfectant properties of your cleaning product.

Latest references

We are acting as legal advisor to Piippo Plc in the sale of their bale netwrap and baler twine machines, related assets, and trademarks used in Piippo’s business to Portuguese Cotesi S.A. The sale of assets will be carried out in two phases and the final completion of the transaction is expected to occur during the first quarter of 2026. Piippo Oyj’s core business is baling nets and twine and it is one of the leading suppliers in the industry globally. The company’s global distribution network covers more than 40 countries. The company’s shares are listed on the First North Growth Market Finland operated by Nasdaq Helsinki Oy. Founded in 1967, Cotesi is one of the world’s leading producers of synthetic and natural twines, nets and ropes, with operations in Europe, North America and South America and its main production plant in Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal.
Case published 17.4.2025
We advised Valio Oy in its acquisition of Raisio Oyj’s plant protein business, related fixed assets and the Härkis® and Beanit® fava bean brands. The fixed assets include, among other things, the production equipment of the factory that makes plant protein products in Kauhava. The transaction supports Valio’s strategy to grow from a dairy company to a food company. This business acquisition will make us an even more significant developer and producer of plant-based protein products. The demand for these products will grow in the long term, and a great deal of growth potential still remains. In 2022, we acquired the Gold&Green® business and, since then, we have been carrying out strong product development and renewed the brand. Following successful product launches, sales in the last quarter of 2024 increased by about 50% from the previous quarter. With this acquisition, we are building our own production capacity. The production equipment of the Kauhava factory is just right for our needs and situation. says Kimmo Luoma, Valio’s Senior Vice President. Valio is a Finnish dairy and food company founded in 1905 and owned by Finnish dairy cooperatives. Valio has subsidiaries in Sweden, Estonia, the United States and China. In 2023, the Group had a turnover of EUR 2 278 million and more than 4 000 employees.
Case published 14.2.2025
We successfully represented Arctic Biomaterials Oy before the Finnish Market Court in an extensive dispute concerning alleged patent infringement and invalidity of the patent-in-suit. Our client has invented next-generation bioabsorbable composites that are engineered with Arctic Biomaterials’ X3 bioactive natural mineral fibers, offering robust, bioactive reinforcement for orthopedic implants. These advanced composites empower customers to create high-strength bioabsorbable solutions for the most demanding applications. Back in 2019, Purac Biochem B.V. alleged, among other things, that our client’s Evolvecomp product had infringed Purac Biochem B.V.’s European patent validated in Finland protecting a biocompatible composite and its use. Purac Biochem B.V. filed a preliminary injunction against our client under the Act on Securing the Provision of Evidence in Civil Cases Concerning Industrial Property Rights and Copyright (344/2000). The Finnish Market Court issued an ex-parte injunction against our client on 2 April 2019 (MAO:150/19) and a final injunction on 19 February 2020 (MAO:59/20). Our client had disputed Purac Biochem B.V.’s patent infringement claim from the beginning and claimed that the patent-in-suit was invalid. After five years of litigation, the Finnish Market Court handed down a ruling in the joined invalidity and infringement cases on 10 October 2024 (MAO:560/2024 and MAO:561/2024) declaring Purac Biochem B.V.’s patent invalid and dismissing Purac’s infringement action against Arctic Biomaterials. Also, the preliminary injunction based on an alleged patent infringement imposed against Arctic Biomaterials was cancelled. The Market Court declared Purac Biochem B.V.’s patent invalid due to a lack of inventive step. The Market Court applied the could-would method for determining whether the patent-in-suit is inventive or not. The could-would method is based on determining whether a person skilled in the art would (not simply could, but would) have made a specific improvement to prior solutions, based on the available prior art. The Market Court ruled that it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to solve the objective technical problem of the patent-in-suit in the manner presented in claim 1, using as a starting point the closest prior art (prior patent publication) and combining it with the teaching of another prior art publication. The decision is final.
Case published 29.1.2025
We acted as Finnish counsel to Pernod Ricard in the sale of a portfolio of local Nordic brands to Oy Hartwall Ab, an affiliate of the Danish group Royal Unibrew. Pernod Ricard is a worldwide leader in the spirits and wine industry. The local portfolio of brands includes spirits, liqueurs and Finnish wine brands, the best-known being the liqueur Minttu, along with their related production assets based in Turku, Finland.
Case published 21.10.2024