European e-Justice Portal - Case Law
Close

BETA VERSION OF THE PORTAL IS NOW AVAILABLE!

Visit the BETA version of the European e-Justice Portal and give us feedback of your experience!

 
 

Navigation path


menu starting dummy link

Page navigation

menu starting dummy link

Case Details

Case Details
National ID Provvedimento n. 25881
Member State Italy
Common Name CV140 - PAYPAL-(EUROPE) & PAYPAL.IT-CONDIZIONI D'USO
Decision type Administrative decision, first degree
Decision date 24/02/2016
Court Antitrust Authority
Subject
Plaintiff Federconsumatori della Sardegna and Altroconsumo
Defendant Paypal Europe and Paypal Italy Srl
Keywords jurisdiction, right of withdrawal, unfair terms

Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 5 Unfair Contract Terms Directive, ANNEX I, 1., (b) Unfair Contract Terms Directive, ANNEX I, 1., (n) Unfair Contract Terms Directive, ANNEX I, 1., (q)

(1) The clause on the non-use of the Purchase Protection Programme with object "Significantly non-compliant to the description"with no further explanation, is unfair because capable of limiting the implementation of refunds guaranteed to the consumers in case of delivery of a good different from the description

(2) The clauses on the applicable legislation and cognizant jurisdiction are unfair if are capable of causing a significant lack of balance between consumers’ rights and obligations

Following a public discussion which saw the participation of consumers’ associations, AGCM launched investigations against Paypal so as to verify whether its terms and conditions contained clauses which could have unfair nature for consumers.
AGCM required the company to modify its terms and conditions diffused on the Internet (www.paypal.com/it) so as to eliminate several unfair clauses. In particular, the removal of a specific clause in the Purchase Protection Programme so as to allow buyers to be refunded if they can prove the non-delivery of the product despite the seller’s certification of delivery or shipping.
(1) The clause on the non-use of the Purchase Protection Programme with object "Significantly non-compliant to the description" was considered unfair because capable of limiting the implementation of refunds guaranteed by PayPal in case of delivery of a good different from the description, since no clear definition of "Significantly non-compliant to the description" was provided giving the company full discretionality to assess conformity of the item bought.

(2) The clauses on the applicable legislation and cognizant jurisdiction were considered unfair because capable of causing a significant lack of balance between consumers’ rights and obligations, since the applicable jurisdiction was only UK law and UK courts or in alternative a Luxembourg court, thus derogating to the principle of the competent court being the place of residence of the consumer.

(1) Is the clause related to the non-use of the Purchase Protection Programme with object "Significantly non-compliant to the description" an unfair term?
(2) Is the clauses on the applicable legislation and cognizant jurisdiction which refers to the jurisdiction of the court of residence of the trader an unfair term?
Full Text: Full Text

No results available

No results available

The plaintiff's request was granted