Concerning advertizing in television movies it is possible to be bent and indignant simply, and it is possible to arrive as the inhabitant of Dnepropetrovsk Alexander Rubakha made. In 2005 it filed a lawsuit the claim on 11-й TV channel upon violation "The law on the rights of consumers".
The applicant explains motives of the act so:
- The consumer including I, receive from television production in the look spoiled, in fact. Advertizing turns television translation into ridiculous, unattractive mix from pieces of the movie, female laying, beer, a cud and vodka. And it becomes television stations without permission and a consent of TV viewers. I watch movies for rest, for outlook expansion, and, interrupting them with advertizing, the television, in fact, interferes with my private life. So negligence to the audience is offensive, humiliating. It humiliates their advantage, including mine.
Seven witnesses of charge of a court session confirmed that fact that each movie broadcast on the channel unexpectedly and repeatedly interrupts the advertizing which doesn't have relations to a plot. The Zhovtnevy district court unexpectedly for many satisfied the claim and collected from the channel the considerable sum for the caused moral damage to the TV viewer. The court rejected the appeal complaint of TV men.
I fell Alexander Iosifovich's following "victim" 9-й the channel. Again witnesses confirmed the fact of interruption of movies with advertizing, and the Zhovtnevy court passes again the decision in favor of the claimant. But this time the Appellate court takes the part of TV channel and satisfies the appeal complaint.
The Supreme Court of Ukraine refused to the claimant consideration of its appeal. And there was one confusing circumstance: the appeal, contrary to a legal procedure, was considered by the Supreme Court not publicly, without opening of cassation proceeding. In this case it not only formality.