Representing the company in administrative complaints from consumers The complaint was filed by a Consumer Association, for alleged violations committed by our client related to having included abusive clauses in its terms and conditions and for not complying with the correct implementation of the Virtual Complaint Book. B TIME’s representative is included in the procedure. Demonstrate non-infringement of consumer legislation The relevance of this case is to verify the adequacy that suppliers must follow the provisions of consumer legislation in order to comply with the established rules. From this case, our advice is the strategy to mitigate possible sanctions that may be imposed. In addition, the review and supervision of the terms and conditions of the products offered and the correct implementation of the Complaints Book. Latest development In the first instance, we were able to avoid the imposition of a pecuniary sanction, achieving a favourable saving for our client. In view of this, the Association appealed INDECOPI’s resolution, and the case is still pending.

Representing the company in administrative complaints from consumers In this case, an administrative proceeding was carried out for alleged non-compliance with corrective measures and costs without the participation of the supplier, since it had not been duly notified by the authority, thus preventing it from exercising its right to defense. Demonstrate non-infringement of consumer legislation Upon becoming aware of the case, we requested INDECOPI all the background information for its review and a letter was filed requesting the integral review of the file and the notification charges. Latest development The case is under analysis by the authority, since we filed a brief in which we allege the errors in which the notifications are made throughout the procedure.

Representing the company in administrative complaints from consumers The consumer filed a complaint for alleged non-compliance with a corrective measure for not agreeing with the repair of a product (laptop), requesting the refund of the amount paid. Said corrective measure was ordered in a previous proceeding filed by the same consumer. Demonstrate non-infringement of consumer legislation INDECOPI, ruled in favor of our client, specifying that the refund of the value of the product does not proceed, but that first the product must be repaired, and if the repair is not possible, the product must be exchanged for a similar or superior product. Finally, if the affected product can neither be repaired nor exchanged, the reimbursement will be made. This case is important, since INDECOPI establishes a priority among the solution alternatives in cases of product warranty. Latest development The case is on appeal, as the consumer maintains its position of requiring a refund and not a repair.

Representing the airline in administrative complaints from consumers In this case, an administrative proceeding was carried out for alleged non-compliance with corrective measures and costs without the participation of the supplier, since it had not been duly notified by the authority, thus preventing it from exercising its right to defense. Demonstrate non-infringement of consumer legislation Upon becoming aware of the case, we requested INDECOPI all the background information for its review and a letter was filed requesting the integral review of the file and the notification charges. Latest development The case is being processed as copies of the entire file have been requested.

Representing the association in administrative complaints from consumers Clinica Diospi Suyana was denounced for the death of a person despite the fact that it provided care for the circumstances of the case. SUSALUD (Consumer Protection Authority in the health field) initiated a sanctioning process and sanctioned Diospi Suyana with 138 UIT. Demonstrate non-infringement of consumer legislation We filed an appeal for reconsideration alleging and demonstrating that the patient received first class care. SUSALUD resolved and declared one charge founded but another unfounded. We have appealed and we obtain revert the authority decision that result on the excelling on not been liable of an administrative infringement. Latest development This resolution leaves without effect any economic sanction (138 UIT), That’s mean that was benefic for our client.

Representing the airline in administrative complaints from consumers The consumer did not board a contracted flight because he did not comply with the requirements to board the flight related to the means of payment by which he purchased the air transportation service. In addition, the passenger alleged that along with the other persons in his reservation, they were treated badly by the airline’s customer service personnel and were even discriminated against. Demonstrate non-infringement of consumer legislation The evidentiary means of the parties will be evaluated, for example, the communications with the boarding requirements communicated by the airline and whether this was made available or notified to the e-mail address registered by the complainant. However, there is a more rigorous evaluation due to the requirement to present the card used for the purchase of the tickets and whether or not this is a coercive commercial practice. Latest development The case is on appeal and we await the consumer’s arguments in order to refute them.