THE BOTTOM LINE
- Severe Financial Penalties: Non-compliance with consumer protection rules in the online checkout process can lead to significant financial consequences. In this case, the court reduced the company’s claim against a non-paying customer by 60%.
- Beyond the Button: Scrutiny extends past the final “order” button. The court also penalized the company for failing to display the total contract price and for unclear information about the right of withdrawal during the pre-contractual phase.
- Unfair “Fine Print” Can Invalidate Your Claims: Standard clauses in your general terms and conditions concerning early termination and collection of legal costs can be deemed unfair and voided by the court, preventing you from relying on them to claim damages.
THE DETAILS
In a recent ruling, the Amsterdam District Court delivered a sharp reminder to e-commerce businesses about the high cost of non-compliance with EU consumer law. The case involved a company, Huurgemak B.V., seeking payment from a consumer who had entered into a 36-month rental agreement online. The court found multiple failings in the company’s online contracting process. The most critical issue was the “order button,” which, in the court’s view, did not clearly and explicitly state that the consumer was entering into a payment obligation, as required by law. This, combined with a failure to state the total price of the contract (only a monthly fee was shown) and inadequate information on the consumer’s right of withdrawal, led the court to impose a hefty sanction: a 60% reduction in the principal amount the company could claim.
The court’s examination did not stop at the checkout page. It proceeded to an in-depth review of the company’s general terms and conditions for unfair clauses under the EU Unfair Contract Terms Directive. Two common types of clauses were found to be unfair and were annulled. The first allowed the company to terminate the contract and demand payment for all remaining installments for any breach, no matter how minor. The court found this created a significant imbalance to the detriment of the consumer. The second clause unfairly stipulated that the consumer would be liable for all judicial costs in case of a dispute, a significant deviation from the standard Dutch legal framework where cost allocation is regulated by the court.
Interestingly, the court initially considered referring questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for a definitive ruling on the consequences of a non-compliant order button—a sign of the legal uncertainty in this area. However, it ultimately decided against it, noting that the specific facts of this case were too ambiguous to produce the clear, EU-wide guidance that is needed. This decision highlights that while this case was resolved based on current Dutch case law, the fundamental questions remain open. Businesses should therefore anticipate continued judicial scrutiny and potential further tightening of these rules at both national and European levels.
SOURCE
Source: Rechtbank Amsterdam
