On 17 December 2014, the Commercial Court of Brussels handed down a judgment regarding comparative advertising of Mobistar with regard to the supposed quality of its 4G mobile network.

In February 2014, Mobistar had commissioned two studies with a view to assessing the quality of the mobile networks in Belgium. These studies showed that Mobistar ran the best 4G mobile network in Belgium.

Following this assessment, Mobistar launched an advertising campaign emphasising the superior quality of its network compared to that of its competitors. The campaign claimed that Mobistar's download speed amounted to 31,3 Megabits per seconds (Mpbs) while download speeds of the networks of its rivals, Proximus and Base, only achieved 20,3 Mbps and 15,5 Mbps.

Following large investments by Proximus in its mobile network in March 2014, a new study published in April 2014 showed significant developments over the studies published just two months earlier. According to the new study, Proximus now had the best 4G network in Belgium (in terms of both upload and download speeds).

Despite the results of this new study, Mobistar continued promoting its services on the basis of the studies conducted in February 2014 (which did not take account of Proximus' later investments).

Proximus was of the opinion that Mobistar's advertising campaign constituted an illicit comparative advertisement pursuant to Article VI.17 of the Code of Economic Law and an unfair and misleading practice pursuant to Articles VI.95, VI.97, VI.99 and VI.105 of the same Code. As a result, it brought an action against Mobistar seeking the cessation of its campaign.

In its judgment of 17 December 2014, the Commercial Court of Brussels found in favour of Proximus. The Court considered that, by continuing waging a comparative advertising campaign long after a new study had shown that the data used for this campaign was obsolete, Mobistar had infringed the provisions of the Code of Economic Law on comparative advertising and unfair and misleading practices.

Mobistar was therefore ordered to cease its advertising under forfeiture of a penalty payment.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.