The Bottom Line
- Vague checkout button text is a costly mistake. Using phrases like “Book Directly” instead of a clear statement of payment obligation (e.g., “Order with obligation to pay”) can lead to courts severely reducing your claim against a non-paying customer.
- Hiding key info in your T&Cs is not enough. Essential consumer information, such as your company’s address, cancellation rights, and complaint policies, must be presented clearly and proactively during the checkout process, not just buried in a long legal document.
- Courts are actively policing online checkouts. Even in default judgments where the consumer doesn’t appear in court, judges will independently review your e-commerce processes for compliance with consumer protection laws and will not hesitate to apply significant financial penalties for violations.
The Details
In a clear warning to e-commerce and platform businesses, the District Court of Noord-Holland has significantly penalized a company for failing to comply with consumer information duties. The court found that the company, SnappCar, used a checkout button labeled “direct boeken” (“book directly”). The judge ruled this wording was not an “unambiguous formulation” that clearly informs the consumer they are entering into a payment obligation, as required by Dutch law (which implements the EU Consumer Rights Directive). This single misstep on the final step of the transaction was a primary reason for the court’s intervention.
The checkout button was not the only issue. The court also identified several failures in the company’s pre-contractual information process. SnappCar had not clearly provided its identity and address, its complaint handling policy, or the consumer’s right of withdrawal before the contract was concluded. The company argued this information was available in its general terms and conditions, but the court dismissed this defense. It ruled that simply making the information available is insufficient; it must be actively and clearly presented to the consumer, who should not have to hunt for it within a lengthy legal text. Furthermore, the contract confirmation sent to the consumer was unreadable when submitted as evidence, preventing the court from verifying compliance with post-contractual information duties.
As a direct consequence of these combined failings, the court applied a harsh but proportionate sanction. Following established judicial guidelines for such violations, it partially annulled the agreement, reducing the consumer’s payment obligation by 60%. The original claim of €224.05 was cut down to just €89.62 before accounting for a partial payment. This ruling underscores that procedural compliance in consumer-facing digital transactions is not a mere formality. Courts will enforce these rules to provide effective consumer protection, and the financial consequences for non-compliant businesses can be severe.
Source
Rechtbank Noord-Holland
