THE BOTTOM LINE
- Increased Litigation Burden: Businesses suing consumers for non-payment must now proactively prove they provided all legally required pre-contractual information. Simply attaching general terms and conditions to a claim is no longer sufficient.
- Risk of Claim Dismissal: Failing to adequately demonstrate compliance can lead to the court rejecting your claim, even if the consumer doesn’t show up to defend the case.
- Actionable Record-Keeping Required: Companies must maintain detailed records of their online sales process, including screenshots of the sign-up and checkout flow, to serve as evidence of compliance in any future disputes.
THE DETAILS
In a significant interim ruling, a Dutch court has put businesses on notice regarding their consumer disclosure obligations. The case involved a company seeking payment from a consumer who had defaulted. Even though the consumer did not appear in court, the judge took it upon himself to review whether the company had complied with consumer protection laws derived from EU directives. This proactive review is standard practice in the Netherlands, but this ruling sharpens the evidentiary requirements for businesses. The court is no longer just checking if the right information exists; it’s demanding proof that it was clearly and properly presented to the consumer before the contract was formed.
The core of the issue was the plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate how it fulfilled its pre-contractual information duties. The company had submitted its terms and conditions, but it did not explain the specific steps in the online agreement process where the consumer was presented with this essential information. The court explicitly stated that it is not its role to sift through documents to build the plaintiff’s case. It suggested that best practice would involve submitting evidence like screenshots of the website and sign-up process, clearly highlighting where and how key information (such as product characteristics, total costs, and cancellation rights) was provided.
While the court found the company’s actual contract clauses to be fair, it put the case on hold due to the procedural failure. In this instance, the judge offered the company a one-time opportunity to submit a new statement detailing its compliance. However, the ruling came with a stark warning: for future cases, a failure to provide this detailed proof from the outset could lead to the immediate dismissal of the claim. This signals a clear shift, placing a heavier burden on businesses to not only comply with the law but to be ready to prove it with clear, step-by-step evidence.
SOURCE
Source: District Court of Noord-Holland
