Buyer
protection as
Cost trap.
Buyer
protection as
Cost trap.
from
Can online platforms simply activate additional paid services by default? What happens if consumers pay for buyer protection without realizing it when buying used clothing? And does consumer law also apply if the platform itself is not the seller?
What is it all about?
The second-hand platform Vinted is known to many as a marketplace for used clothing and accessories. As a rule, private individuals are active there as buyers and sellers. The platform itself does not act as a seller, but merely mediates contact between users.
However, Vinted offers its own fee-based service: “Vinted Buyer Protection”. Buyers pay €0.70 plus 5% of the item price for this service. The problem: The buyer protection was automatically preset during the ordering process. Anyone who purchased an item using the “Buy” function could not deselect the buyer protection, but could only see the total price, which already included the costs for buyer protection.
The Federation of German Consumer Organizations saw this as a violation of competition law and took action against it.
The decision
The Berlin Court of Appeal granted the Federation of German Consumer Organizations with Judgment of 02.12.2025 – Ref. 5 U 87/22 law and amended the first-instance judgment of the Berlin Regional Court. Vinted was ordered to refrain from offering buyer protection as a default setting in the booking form.
The regional court had dismissed the claim on this point. It had been of the opinion that the relevant consumer protection regulation only applied if an entrepreneur offered its own main service. However, as Vinted only mediates sales contracts between private individuals and does not act as a seller itself, no such case existed.
Why the Court of Appeal ruled differently
The 5th Civil Senate of the Court of Appeal disagreed with the lower court on one key point. Accordingly, the consumer protection regulation against preset additional services also applies if the main service (here: the purchase of a used item) and the additional service (here: buyer protection) come from different providers.
The court cited several arguments for this broad interpretation. Firstly, the wording of the law: This refers to an “agreement” on an additional payment. In the opinion of the Senate, this term does not necessarily have to refer to the main contract, but can also refer to the additional payment alone.
Another decisive factor for the court was the meaning and purpose of the regulation. It is intended to protect consumers from committing themselves contractually to a greater extent than they actually want. It depends on the consumer’s perspective. Anyone who buys a used item online usually focuses primarily on the purchase price. The fact that an additional fee-based contract is automatically concluded in the background via buyer protection typically comes as a surprise to the consumer.
The decisive factor is not whether there is an additional service provided by the trader, but whether there is an additional payment obligation from the consumer’s point of view.
The Court of Appeal also based its decision on a ruling by the European Court of Justice. This had already clarified that the main and additional services can also be provided by different companies. A narrow interpretation that only covers cases in which one and the same trader offers both would easily circumvent the protective purpose of the European Consumer Rights Directive.
Specifically, the Senate found that Vinted users did not have the option of completing a purchase without buyer protection in the “Buy checkout” variant. The purchase declaration and the buyer protection declaration were submitted together – a classic case of a default setting that the law wants to prohibit.
Conclusion
The ruling has implications for online platforms that offer similar additional services such as buyer protection insurance, extended warranties or service packages. Anyone who activates such services by default in the ordering process risks cease and desist letters and disputes under competition law.
The decision clarifies that consumer protection also applies in so-called triangular constellations against additional costs that have been foisted on consumers, i.e. also where a platform offers its own fee-based service as part of a sales contract between third parties. Platform operators cannot rely on the fact that they themselves are not the seller of the main service.
We are happy to
advise you about
E-Commerce!
