The House in Federal Administrative upheld a fine imposed by the Internal Trade Department against a laboratory, which produced dietary products, which did not provide the mandatory information required by the National Administration of Drugs, Food and Medical Technology (ANMAT).
The penalty is “not to provide legal information when making a dietary supplement advertising in violation of the provisions of the ANMAT”, said the judges who explained that the laboratory should “lean toward the proper use of the product, presenting their property objectively without cheating or misleading, providing true, accurate and clear. “
“A plain reading of the advertising on the record shows that it does not include the legend” supplement diets insufficient, see your doctor and / or pharmaceutical ‘, which is required for the advertising of dietary supplements “say the judges who detected that the advertising of both products “has failed to provide consumers with clear, accurate, detailed enough.”
A few days ago, the same court confirmed a further fine of the Ministry of Commerce, this time against Bianca National del Labor, which must be faced by the HSBC Bank Argentina, financial institution continuation of its activities for the damage caused to a client who account closed for no reason and interest erroneously billed.
At that time the bank was fined (80,000 pesos but justice reduced the amount to 60,000) following a complaint made in November 2005 by Horace Schwartz, who said his wife was prevented from withdrawing money from the account “salary” in Mexico, where he was studying.
The inspection body the penalty applied because “the bank reported no effective and sufficient for altering the terms and conditions for its services in connection with the withdrawal of money from ATMs located outside the country.”
By ratifying the fine, though reducing in amount, the same maid claimed that the Customer’s claim “was not resolved or answered satisfactorily, efficiently and timely and appropriate, all of which is revealing in a negligent and careless in providing housing services and collections involved in the operative agreed. “
The judges explained that the bank customers, who are defined as “weaker party in the contractual relationship” put their trust in the entities that must act, “governed by the ethical standards of ‘good career’, because of its high degree of expertise and for being a collector of public funds, why the public interest requires to act responsibly. “
