Review of law sciences

Review of law sciences
(2020) 130-139 
7 
Advertising, which includes undeveloped "alien" legal components [50]. The legal framework for 
improper advertising consists of means and end provisions [51]. The mixture of these provisions 
and standards that were applied to it make the regulation inefficient and vague in some point.
The legal framework of misleading advertising is unclear and ambiguous, which leads the 
state to the following substantive legal issues: 
First, the legislature designed the legal framework so-called improper advertising in a 
mixture way, which contains misleading advertising and excessive advertising [52]. The excessive 
advertising can manage to regulate time, place and manner of advertising, but cannot deal with 
deception that affects consumers` economic behavior [53]. Such ambiguous legal framework of 
improper advertising proved that Uzbekistan implemented the corporate regulatory model, which 
gives to enforcement body an alternative choice to regulate the advertisement policy to provide 
government interest. 
Second, the effect of misleading advertising on consumer behaviour is the main criterion for 
the legal evaluation of misleading advertising, which is called materiality standard [54]. However, 
the legal provision on deception does not include materiality standard for evaluation of misleading 
advertising. The lack of materiality standard in the Advertising law makes the regulation 
inefficient because without estimating consumer economic behaviour the enforcement body 
cannot properly determine and evaluate the effects of misleading advertising. 
Third, the legal definition of improper advertising has a loophole, which is formulated as 
"violations of other requirements established in the Advertising law". What kind of violations are 
they? Can each violation of the Law be considered improper advertising? These questions show 
that such implied legal framework can cause the abuse of regulative power by government. Thus, 
government can unreasonably intervene to commercial speech of producers whenever possible due 
to this loophole in legal framework. 
Enforcement problems 
The adopted unclear legal framework without sufficient standards cause three main problems 
in enforcement. 
First, the Competition Committee of Uzbekistan (UzCC), using the ambiguity of improper 
advertising, makes excessive advertising priority in practice, even if the excessive advertising does 
not mislead consumers. Unfortunately, the priority of the excessive advertising in practice provides 
to maintain government intervention in advertising regulation. The problem can be illustrated by 
a typical case. In Surkhandaryo TV case, the broadcast company violated the time requirement of 
advertising dissemination. According to that requirement, advertisements on TV should not exceed 
10 percent per hour, which means maximum 6 minutes per hour. However, in this case, the 
company broadcasted TV commercials more than 6 minutes per hour, and therefore the violation 
was evaluated as improper advertising. Thus, the UzCC evaluated excessive advertising to be 
misleading one, even if it did not have misleading effects. 
Moreover, the loophole in Advertising law formulated that the "violations of other 
requirements" interpreted as unsubstantiated advertising by the UzCC. According to the 
requirement on substantition of advertising, producers or advertisers must substantiate an 
advertising information with particular documents. The UzCC usually requires to show 
information on license or certification in advertisement. However, such requirement has become 
prior rather than proof of deception in advertisement. For instance, in Namangan International 
Airport case, the Administration of Airport placed an outdoor advertisement on a billboard that 
stated the flights form Namangan to cities of Russia, such as Moscow, St.Petersburg, Ekaterinburg 

---