Share

Mediobanca, the Antitrust fines Compass for 4,7 million

The competition commissioner fined the company for unfair commercial practices: it required the underwriting of insurance policies not related to loans

Mediobanca, the Antitrust fines Compass for 4,7 million

Bitter end and beginning of the year for Compass, the consumer credit finance company controlled by Mediobanca. In fact, the Antitrust, at the end of a long and in-depth investigation, decided to impose a fine of 4,7 million euros on her.

The company ended up under the spotlight of the competition guarantor and of the general directorate for consumer protection for a commercial practice deemed contrary to the rules of the consumer code: the forced combination, at the time of signing personal loan agreements, of insurance products not linked to credit, of which the same financial institution is the intermediary. In practice, to grant loans it also required the subscription of insurance policies that had nothing to do with the loan requested by the customer. The practice, ascertained by the Antitrust, went on for 5 years, from January 2015 and at the time of the decision it was in progress.

On the other hand, other financing companies that ended up in the proceeding got away without sanctions but with the obligation to make precise commitments and to remove their behaviors not in line with the Consumer Code: Europ Assistance Italia, MetLife Europe Dac and MetLife Europe Insurance Dac. Within sixty days they will have to inform the guarantor of the measures taken to implement the required commitments. Failure to comply with the requests will allow the Antitrust to reopen the proceeding and decide on any sanctions.

Returning to Compass, the preliminary investigation "emerges a commercial policy for the distribution of policies not connected to loans - writes the Antitrust in SNOW which closes the 2019 activity - particularly strong, with the placement of insurance products that do not comply with the needs of the loan beneficiary".

According to the guarantor, "the seriousness of the practice is also recognizable in the aggressive nature of the same, as well as in the extent of the economic damage of the consumers benefiting from the loans, and in their weakness, deriving from a state of need which led them to request the financial liquidity possibly in a short time". In conclusion, the unlawful practice would have caused damage estimated at between 60,5 and 90,5 million for the consumers involved, against revenues for Compass calculated in a range between 15,2 and 35,2 millions.

comments