"I no longer shop here": why comparing prices on social media can lead to fines for Kirov bloggers

      When personal opinion becomes advertising

      Price comparisons are not prohibited in themselves — consumers need objective information. The problem arises when a post ceases to be neutral and begins to promote one seller at the expense of another. Phrases like "store A is expensive, but store B is always a good deal" are no longer just impressions, but an advertising tactic.

      Lawyers explain: the difference between subjective opinion and advertising is determined not by form, but by the effect that the publication produces. If it can redistribute demand, the regulator may qualify it as unfair competition.

      What threatens authors of comparative reviews

      According to Article 5 of the Advertising Law (No. 38-FZ) and Article 14.3 of the Competition Protection Law (No. 135-FZ), advertising must be fair and truthful. It is not permissible to incorrectly compare oneself with competitors or to use superlatives ("best," "most advantageous") without confirmation.

      The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in ruling No. 305-ЭС16-17606 dated March 20, 2017, confirmed: if a comparison cannot be objectively verified or distorts the perception of a product, such advertising is deemed unfair.

      According to lawyer Alexey Bashuk, the punishment depends on the region and circumstances. In one city, a warning may suffice, while in another, a fine of 2,000 rubles may be imposed, and in a third, it could be 100,000 rubles. For bloggers in Kirov, this means that even a small video can lead to serious financial losses.

      Real case: complaint from "Golden Apple"

      Recently, a blogger reported receiving a pre-trial complaint from the "Golden Apple" chain. The reason was a phrase stating that she "no longer buys cosmetics at this store." Brand representatives believed that the author used the trademark and the chain's name to advertise a competitor, reports the portal mkset.ru.

      Lawyers noted that in this case, three violations were recorded: illegal use of the trademark, unfair comparison without any research, and placement of advertising in violation of the law. Each of these carries the risk of compensation and fines amounting to hundreds of thousands of rubles. The blogger admitted that she acted out of ignorance, but the law does not exempt from responsibility.

      Risks for bloggers and advertisers

      In addition to the attention of the Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS), authors of comparative reviews may face lawsuits for protection of business reputation, demands to remove publications, and claims for damages. Moreover, liability may arise not only for the blogger but also for the company in whose interests the material was published.

      A separate risk is the placement of advertising content on platforms banned in the Russian Federation (for example, Instagram*, owned by Meta, which has been recognized as an extremist organization). The mere fact of publishing advertising there is already a separate violation.

      What Kirov bloggers should do

      Lawyer Mikhail Salkin emphasizes: it is essential to clearly separate subjective evaluation from advertising. Criticizing a product using a trademark is not prohibited. But if you mention competitors and emphasize superiority — that is already a violation.

      Most conflicts do not reach court: after receiving a complaint, authors delete the video. But by that time, the video may have gained hundreds of thousands of views, and the audience's opinion about the store has already formed.

      The FAS's attention to such content will only increase. This means that Kirov bloggers, like their colleagues across the country, should assess risks in advance before comparing prices on social media. Otherwise, a useful review may turn into an expensive lesson.

      * Instagram is owned by Meta, whose activities have been recognized as extremist and banned in the Russian Federation.