Annotation

The paper examines the reasons why the preferential mechanism of Article 4.1.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation — the replacement of a fine with a warning — practically does not work in disputes related to violations of advertising laws. This norm has existed for more than ten years, yet antitrust authorities and courts refer to it only sporadically. The key reason is the broad interpretation of the condition regarding the absence of a threat to protected public relations, unsupported by clear legislative guidelines. The author draws attention to the fact that online advertising possesses specific characteristics — wide audience reach, a cumulative harmful effect, and difficulties in establishing the fact of the primary nature of the violation — which in practice block the application of the preferential norm in almost all Internet-related disputes. Drawing on the works of D.N. Bakhrakh, Yu.N. Starilov, A.V. Martynov, L.L. Popov, V.V. Lazarev, and materials from judicial and arbitration practice, the conclusion is made that this problem is systemic in nature. As a solution, it is proposed to establish in Article 4.1.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation specific criteria for assessing the public danger of digital violations (or to reflect them in the clarifications of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation), as well as to differentiate the elements of advertising offenses according to the degree of actual harm caused.