Thesis · September 018 citations reads 199 author: Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects

1.5. Problem identification 
The problem in Uzbekistan is misunderstanding and misimplementation of the Commercial 
Speech Doctrine and Consumerism issues concerning misleading advertising regulation, which 
causes to design ambiguous and tangled legal requirements. 
Improper advertising is (1) unfair, false advertising which 
actually misleads or tends to mislead consumers by the way of 
inaccuracy, ambiguity, exaggeration, omission, or through the 
(2) violation of requirements on time, place and manner of 
advertising or (3) violation of other legislative requirements, 
which can cause damages to person and state. 
 
Deception 
 
Non-content 
Substantiation 
Figure 2. Legal definition of improper advertising Source: Advertising law (1998)
This tangled legal concept of improper advertising contents a mixture of three distinct legal 
requirements, which results in following problems in enforcement:
1. Problems regarding comprehension of deception standard
Case analysis shows that the Competition Committee of Uzbekistan (UzCC) cannot clearly 
understand a legal nature of deception standard. For instance, in Beeline case, although there are 
special legal requirements for deception the Committee applied general legal requirements for 
advertising 
such as legality, accuracy, reliability and using harmless advertising techniques, which 
does not reflect any sanctions (See Beeline case in paragraph 5.2.3). Moreover, 
San`at Sehri 
company case shows that the Committee does not clearly distinguish deception by omission of 
facts from a hidden (subliminal) advertising that has subliminal effect on the conscience of 
consumers (See San`at Sehri company case in paragraph 5.3.1). Furthermore, the Committee has 
very strict regulatory approach regarding puffery in advertising. The Committee created a list of 
superlative words and phrases that are prohibited to use in advertising. However, "
Rubikon 

---

Wireless Communication"
 Joint Stock Company case shows that the Committee does not clearly 
differentiate exaggeration and puffery concepts indeed (See paragraph 5.3.1). 
2. Problem regarding non-content regulation
According to the Commercial Speech Doctrine, restriction on time, place and manner of 
advertising is non-content regulatory method that should be applied to excessive advertising in 
order to control amount of advertising. Another different issue is amount of information provided 
by advertising, which should be considered as a main standard for content-based regulation of 
misleading advertising. Accordingly
, regulators should consider the legal standard that answers to 
the question: how much information should be provided and in what format? However, the 
legislature of Uzbekistan misunderstood it as amount of advertising, instead of the amount of 
information provided by advertisement. Therefore, the Parliament applied legal standard for 
restriction 
on time, place and manner of advertising
that aims to control excessive amount of 
advertising. Thus, the legislature created non-content regulatory standard, in place of content 
regulation. 
The non-content regulatory standard has become widespread as a main legal standard for 
evaluation of misleading advertising in practice, even if it is not able to identify deception in 
advertisement. 
For instance, in Surkhandaryo TV case, although the broadcast company violated 
the time limitation of advertising dissemination, that is advertisements on TV exceeded more than 
6 minutes per hour which is maximum limit
35
, this violation was evaluated as improper advertising 
(See paragraph 5.3.2).
3. Problem regarding substantiation standard 
One of the main problem in the legal concept is
the phrase "violation of other legislative 
requirements" that shows a loophole in evaluation of misleading advertising. Since the legislature 
des not clarify which kind of violation should be considered as "violation of other legislative 
35
Ibid. Article 17 

---

requirements", this legal uncertainty causes ambiguous interpretation and abusing power by the 
Competition Committee in practice. Indeed, the Committee can find any violation of legislative 
requirements as misleading advertising. Particularly, the Committee currently interprets the 
loophole as substantiation standard which is applied for violation of requirements on license and 
certificate concerning advertised product, even if this standard is not able to identify deception. 
Unfortunately, the substantiation standard can be used widely in future which might bring even 
unreasonable intervention to the commercial speech of entrepreneurs. Most dangerously, 
Namangan International Airport case shows that 
the substantiation standard has become superior 
in evaluation of misleading advertising in practice rather then deception standard (See paragraph 
5.3.3).