Supreme Court

html
The Supreme Court upheld the determination that a “spam recipient” has no duty to mitigate damages, and it is the tortfeasor’s conduct that is tested.
However, unlike the Glasberg case, which viewed the removal option as positive, the Hazani case highlighted the dangers inherent in clicking such links.
Therefore, a removal option will not be a factor in reducing compensation.
Notification on invoices is insufficient; an SMS message must also be sent:
In 2020, an appeal against the district court’s decision was filed with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court established several precedents that would later shake the foundations of communication companies.
Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Law mandates that the consumer be notified that the contract period is about to expire, and this applies equally to the termination of a limited-time offer.