Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice,

give
everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.
Art. 19, Civil Code of the Philippines

Facts

On 11 November 2019, at around 7:00 AM, I bought the following items from Ringke, a Flagship

Store in Lazada (e-commerce platform):

- Ringke Fusion Case for Apple iPhone, P628.05

- Ringke Paracord Lanyard Finger Strap (4 per pack), P287.10
- Ringke Silicone Cable Tie, P198.00
My items were packaged under Order No. 259392070900338 (Exhibit A).

On the days leading to 11 November 2019, Lazada advertised that goods in their site will be sold

at bargain prices on Nov. 11 as long as it is marked “11.11” or sold under the 11.11 Sale Section of their

sellers’ page. This was what prompted me to purchase from Lazada on that day; I had the belief that I am

getting a good deal because it was, after all, part of the 11.11 Sale.

On the following day, Nov.12, however, when I accessed the seller’s page to check the prices of

the items that I bought and see how much I have saved, I was surprised to learn that after 24 hours the

prices of two of the three items had gone down significantly. The lanyard went down to P281.30 (from

P287.10) and the cable ties reduced to P89.00 (from P198.00). (Exhibit B) I was appalled and I felt

deceived. So, on that same day I filed a complaint against Lazada before the Department of Trade and

Industry via Email.

In the Mediation Conference called by the DTI - Fair Trade Enforcement Bureau last Nov. 21,

2019, Lazada insisted that under the Terms and Conditions of the sale, prices of merchandise are subject

to change without prior notice. I refused to accept their reasoning because I bought the items in the

context of a grand sale; and I believed that they violated Article 50 (h) of the Consumer Act of the

Philippines. This resulted in a failure of mediation.

Issue: Whether or not Lazada violated Article 50 (h) of the Consumer Act of the Philippines.

Arguments

1. There was deception and an intent to gain by the seller.

Article 50. Prohibition Against Deceptive Sales Acts or Practices. – A deceptive act or

practice by a seller or supplier in connection with a consumer transaction violates this Act

whether it occurs before, during or after the transaction. An act or practice shall be

deemed deceptive whenever the producer, manufacturer, supplier or seller, through

Page 1 of 6
 concealment, false representation of fraudulent manipulation, induces a consumer to enter

into a sales or lease transaction of any consumer product or service.

Without limiting the scope of the above paragraph, the act or practice of a seller or

supplier is deceptive when it represents that:

xxxx
h) a specific price advantage of a consumer product exists when in fact it does not
xxxx

The law makes it clear that there is deception when the seller represents that “a specific price

advantage of a consumer product exists when in fact it does not”. The price reduction for the items I

bought remained for several days after I found out about it. It only changed (suspiciously) to a higher

price than what I bought it for when I checked the prices again a couple of days after I received the Notice

for Mediation on Nov. 15. This indicates then that the seller was selling the items for a much cheaper

price but chose to jack up the prices on the day of the 11.11 sale, a day when it expects a huge volume of

customers. It clearly had an intent to earn from the sale. There was no advantage to the public at all

despite the highly-advertised sale, in contravention of the Consumer Act prohibition.

2. The argument that “prices are subject to change without prior notice” during the sale cannot

hold

Lazada advertised its 11.11 Shopping Festival as the “Lazada 11.11 - Biggest One Day Sale with

11+ Million Deals and Vouchers”1. This was reinforced endlessly through press releases in social media

and television ads. In fact, an online article by Metro magazine listed “95% off on various items all

throughout the day” and “Over 11 million vouchers and product offerings” as part of what to expect at the

Lazada sale.2 And the Lazada 11.11 Supershow on TV on the eve of the 11.11 sale instructed viewers to

“Add to Cart” all the 11.11 items they wanted to buy while waiting for 12:01 AM to make sure that they

get the best deals before the items run out. In short, there was a grand promotion of the sale and never was

there a mention, a caveat to the public that prices are subject to change without prior notice. And would

not an increase in the prices of goods under a “sale” be deceptive, contrary to the law?

3. Lazada and the seller should be penalized for violating Article 50 (h) of the Consumer Act of the

Philippines.

1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7FbzObBXEw last accessed on 28 November 2019.

2https://metro.style/culture/spotlight/what-to-expect-at-this-years-lazada-11-11-sale/19982 last accessed on 28

November 2019

Page 2 of 6
 I am filing a case against Lazada because it was the one that held the sales promotion. “Sales

promotion… means techniques purely intended to increase patronage and/or goodwill of a product.”3 It

would have been possible to buy the same items from another e-commerce site or probably at the mall but

Lazada had me (and the public) believe that it gives out the best deals. Clearly, that was not the case.

Prayer

We often hear of stories of sellers (both online and physical stores) increasing the prices of their

goods in time for a sale. Sometimes, all one needs to do is peel off the “sale” price tag to reveal the

product’s pre-sale price. Oftentimes, the difference only amounts to a few pesos and it seems not worth

filing a complaint against. But if you multiply that few pesos by the volume of consumers who flock a

Sale, the seller wins by deceiving the buying public. Should we allow that to just pass? Is that not what

the law is trying to protects consumers from?

Lazada should be penalized by the DTI in accordance with the law that protects consumer rights.

Eimann P. Evarola

29 November 2019

3JOINT DTI-DOH-DA ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 01 SERIES OF 2008 | SUBJECT: Rules and regulations for
consumer protection in a transaction covered by the Consumer Act of the Philippines (R.A. 7394) through electronic
means under the E-Commerce Act (R.A. 8792)

Page 3 of 6
 EXHIBIT A

Page 4 of 6
 EXHIBIT B

Page 5 of 6
Page 6 of 6