Reservists’ Rights Advocate Sued for NIS 100,000 After Challenging Orthotics Discount Voucher

Lt. Col. (res.) Adv. Dvir Indig, chairman of the Tzav 8 reservists’ association, has called on Israeli reservists to file complaints against the orthotics company A.A. Orthopedics through the Behatsdaa benefits club, alleging that the company’s discount voucher for custom insoles constitutes a misleading promotion.

Indig claims that the voucher offered through the club is designed to attract reservists to purchase orthotic insoles by presenting what he describes as a fictitious discount and inflated original prices.

“The voucher offered by A.A. Orthopedics is a fiction and a fraud against members of the Behatsdaa club,” Indig said, alleging that the company uses misleading practices to attract reservists and encourage them to purchase orthotic insoles.

Campaign Followed by Removal of Promotion

According to Indig, following his appeal, additional reservists contacted the Behatsdaa club regarding the promotion. The benefit was subsequently removed from the club’s website.

Indig also published his allegations on A.A. Orthopedics’ Google business page, where he accused the company of offering what he described as a fictitious promotion, displaying inflated prices and charging excessive amounts for its products.

Orthotics Company Files NIS 100,000 Lawsuit

A.A. Orthopedics subsequently filed a NIS 100,000 lawsuit against Indig at the Petah Tikva Magistrate’s Court.

The company’s lawsuit concerns Indig’s publications and the campaign led by the Tzav 8 reservists’ association calling for the removal of the alleged misleading voucher from the Behatsdaa website and the termination of the club’s commercial relationship with A.A. Orthopedics.

Indig describes the lawsuit as an attempt to silence criticism and argues that his actions were aimed at protecting reservists and alerting them to what he considers a problematic commercial offer.

Dispute Centers on Transparency of Consumer Benefits

At the heart of the dispute is the question of whether the discount offered to reservists accurately reflects a genuine reduction in price, or whether the original prices and discount presentation could mislead consumers.

The allegations made by Indig are claims at the center of ongoing legal proceedings and have not been established as facts by a court. Likewise, the filing of the lawsuit does not by itself establish that Indig’s publications were defamatory or unlawful.

The case is likely to draw attention beyond the specific dispute, as it raises broader questions about the transparency of commercial benefits offered to reservists and the legal boundaries between consumer advocacy, public criticism and defamation.