What is consumer extremism? The history of its development:

The rule "the customer is always right" appeared at the beginning of the 20th century, its creator is considered to be Harry Gordon Selfridge, the founder of the Selfridge department store in London. This principle was so popular with the public that it became an integral part of doing business, and is widely used by entrepreneurs around the world even after 100 years.

However, in today's reality, when the market is overcrowded with a large number of sellers and the level of competition continues to grow, the rule "the customer is always right" has begun to be used by consumers not to restore justice, but to extract their own unjustified benefit. This has led to the fact that the seller often suffers both material and reputational damage. This trend in consumer behavior has influenced the development of so-called consumer extremism, which causes a large imbalance in the legal status of market participants, negatively affecting the retail and service market.

Most lawyers understand consumer extremism as the abuse of rights by a buyer in order to obtain material benefits at the expense of the seller, manufacturer, importer or contractor.

The most famous case of this kind is the famous "cup of coffee case." In February 1992, 79-year-old New Mexico resident Stella Liebeck was leaving McDonald's with a cup of coffee she had just bought. The door to the fast food restaurant was so heavy that when it opened, it knocked the cup out of her hands, and the hot drink spilled on the woman, who received third-degree burns. She filed a lawsuit. The amount of compensation was $2.9 million, and was later reduced to $640,000. After this incident, the sign "Caution, hot!" appeared on the cups in the restaurant chain.

In Russia, one of the first cases in the history of consumer extremism is considered to be the "Almazov brothers' case." In 2002, the Almazov brothers demanded 100 thousand rubles from the Russian manufacturer of Coca-Cola for broken glass found in five bottles of the soft drink. Otherwise, the blackmailing consumers threatened the company with lawsuits and a campaign in the press that would defame its reputation. However, the manufacturer decided to first organize its own investigation, during which it was discovered that the bottles with broken glass had in fact been written off as defective.

It turned out that one of the brothers, who worked at the Coca-Cola plant, deliberately stole them and tried to pass them off as purchased ones.

One of the main signs of "extremist" behavior on the part of consumers is the filing of claims in court in which the amount of the claim is many times greater than the cost of the goods or services themselves. Since such disputes are too often resolved in favor of the buyer, the number of those wishing to profit from manufacturers is constantly growing. Thus, in Russia in recent years, more and more consumers-extortionists have appeared who masterfully use loopholes in the law "On the Protection of Consumer Rights" to obtain material benefits.

In some cases, we are not talking about one person, but about entire "clans" of consumers, lawyers and experts who work together with a single goal - to gain unjust enrichment. Using the current legislation, they derive huge benefits from legal disputes with sellers or manufacturers of goods, which leads to significant losses for companies

When considering a consumer dispute, the courts consider buyers to be the weaker party, so even in the case of their obvious bad faith, the likelihood of the claim being satisfied remains quite high.

Signs of consumer extremism:

The fact that a consumer who has filed a complaint or gone to court is not interested in protecting his rights, but in receiving financial benefits, can be understood by the following signs:

1. The consumer has repeatedly appealed to the courts with similar claims for similar or identical faults.
2. The consumer immediately sends a claim to the manufacturer or importer of the product instead of contacting the seller. Such buyers are usually not interested in the product itself, but in starting a lawsuit.
3. The consumer specifies false or incomplete data in the claim so that the manufacturer of the product does not fulfill his claim voluntarily within the timeframes established by law. For example, the buyer may send a request for a transfer of funds without specifying bank details; send a claim without attaching documents confirming the purchase of the product; indicate an incorrect address or phone number in the claim so that it is impossible to contact them.
4. The claim is sent within 15 days after the purchase of the product. Consumers send most claims for the return of the cost of the product within 15 days from the date of purchase. By law, the manufacturer is obliged to eliminate any defect in the product discovered within this time period.
5. The consumer conducts a pre-trial examination in unscrupulous expert institutions.
6. The consumer delays the court case in order to increase the penalty and fine. For example, he does not take the actions necessary for the manufacturer to comply with the court decision: does not receive the writ of execution, does not send it to the bailiffs, etc. This increases the period for calculating the penalty, and therefore its total amount.
7. The consumer files identical claims against the seller, manufacturer and importer. Analysis of such situations shows that mass demands of consumers for the return of the cost of goods and payment of penalties are often a money-making scheme. At the same time, sometimes not only individuals, but also legal entities act in bad faith.

For example, there is the Regional Public Organization of Disabled People "Otrada", which practices acquiring consumer claims from citizens under assignment agreements, and then deals with their litigation, filing numerous lawsuits.

What provisions of the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights should businesses be wary of?

According to the Law "On the Protection of Consumer Rights", the seller may be obliged to fulfill the following consumer requirements:

• Compensation for losses incurred by the buyer due to not being able to use the purchased goods; - compensation for all legal costs; - a penalty for refusing to comply with the consumer's legal demands; - compensation for moral damages; - a fine of 50% of the amount won by the consumer.

1. A significant defect in the product has been detected. The preamble to the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights states: “A significant defect is a defect that cannot be eliminated, or the elimination of which would require disproportionate costs or time, or when this defect recurs after it has been eliminated.”
2. The deadline for eliminating the defects of the goods has been violated. According to Article 20 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On the Protection of Consumer Rights", this period cannot exceed 45 days and must be recorded in the document that is issued to the consumer when the item is handed over for repair. It can be called a contract, a work order, or something else, but in any case it must be signed by the person who accepted the goods for repair and the consumer himself. Therefore, when putting your signature, inquire about the time allotted for eliminating the defect. If the item is not repaired within this time, the consumer can demand its replacement with a new one or termination of the sales contract and a refund. If the seller does not issue any paper indicating the repair period, then the defect must be eliminated immediately. The consumer has the right to demand this, referring to Article 20 of the Law "On the Protection of Consumer Rights". It states that defects must be corrected “within the minimum time objectively necessary for their correction, taking into account the method usually used”
3. The consumer is deprived of the opportunity to use the goods for more than 30 days during each year of the warranty period due to the repeated elimination of various defects in the goods. Here is pure arithmetic. Consumers calculate how many days the item was in repair during the year. If more than 30, then they ask for a replacement or refuse the purchase, demanding their money back.
4. Failure to provide receipts for payment of the disputed goods. In accordance with Article 18 of the Law "On Protection of Consumer Rights", in the absence of a cash or sales receipt or other document certifying the fact and conditions of purchase, the consumer is not deprived of the right to make claims if defects are discovered in the goods. And if, due to the absence of a receipt, the consumer is still denied satisfaction of his legal claims, he can file a complaint with Rospotrebnadzor, and then with the court. In court, the fact of purchase can be confirmed by witness testimony and other evidence.
5. Conducting an examination by the seller. The period of the examination depends on the consumer's request. If it is a question of a refund, the seller has 10 days. If it is a question of replacing the goods - 20 days. If these terms are violated, the consumer has the right to demand a penalty for each day of delay in the amount of 1% of the price of the goods. If the consumer's requirements are not met and the examination is not carried out, you can contact independent experts. Having received their conclusion that the defect did not arise through the fault of the consumer (as a result of improper storage, operation, transportation of the goods, actions of third parties or force majeure), he has the right to recover the incurred costs from the seller. If the defects arose after the expiration of the warranty period, but within two years from the date of purchase, the consumer pays for the examination. If a manufacturing defect is confirmed, he is obliged to reimburse these costs.

Types of consumer extremism and the most common violations:

Unscrupulous consumers are most active in the retail sector, namely in the markets of household appliances, electronics and cars. In addition, this phenomenon occurs in the field of banking, insurance services and in the field of online trade, as well as public catering. Litigation with banks, insurance companies, car dealerships and in the field of electronics retail in Russian courts amounts to tens or even hundreds of thousands of rubles.

At the same time, there are areas in which the consumer has a relatively low chance of winning a case. We are talking about disputes where the other party is a bank. In these cases, the plaintiffs, i.e. the buyers, win only in 30% of cases. A similar situation is in disputes with car manufacturers or car dealers, here the consumer loses every second case.

Unfair activity on the part of consumers can take the following forms:

Blackmail. This refers to reputational blackmail, threats to give a negative review of a company or publish a post about its allegedly dishonest activities. The buyer may also threaten to provide non-property claims, such as compensation for moral damages. In this case, the consumer offers the company or individual entrepreneur to pay a certain amount so that they will not take action to hold the organization liable. In this regard, it is much easier for the seller to immediately pay off with a smaller amount and avoid problems with litigation and the application of various financial sanctions. However, following the demands of the extortionist can only provoke the consumer to carry out repeated attacks.

Involvement of state bodies to check the company's activities. In such cases, as a rule, we are talking about one specific client, and not about the coordinated work of a group of people. The ultimate goal is not to receive a sum of money, but exclusively the moral satisfaction of the buyer.

Initiation of legal disputes. Usually in such situations the consumer's goal is to obtain unjust enrichment, since in court he often demands to recover from the manufacturer an amount significantly exceeding the cost of the goods or services. In the next section we will consider in more detail each type of consumer terrorism and tell you how to combat and suppress them.

The most common violations in retail:

In the retail sector, cases involving dishonest consumers are most often encountered in the markets for expensive household appliances and electronics, in the field of banking and insurance services, as well as in the field of online trading.

"The gadget does not turn on, I demand compensation." This remark is a nightmare for the heads of electronics stores, who have been losing large sums of money to consumer rights defenders in court for years. According to them, their opponents have built a scheme for enrichment based on gaps in the legislation. Thus, the consumer already at the purchase stage works out a possible strategy for obtaining benefits: he buys an expensive product and discovers a "breakdown", and then, refusing to provide the product for examination, collects the cost of the product, a fine, and a penalty from the seller. At the same time, he deliberately delays the consideration of the case in order to increase the amount of the penalty, and also does not return the product to the seller if the court satisfies his demands (despite the existence of such an obligation).

Consumer extremism is also widespread in online trading, where the consumer artificially creates a situation where the seller cannot return the money on time for a “supposedly” low-quality or unsuitable product. In the electronics industry, the following scheme applies: a customer buys, for example, an iPhone 14, which soon stops turning on. He files a complaint with the seller, and then returns the product to a certain examination center, which “mythically” proves a manufacturing defect. Based on the received conclusion, the buyer contacts a certain Consumer Rights Protection Center, which exists in almost every region, and through them demands that the seller return the cost of the phone, the examination, and also pay a fine, a penalty, and compensation for moral damages - in total, this amount is 2.5-3 times higher than the cost of the smartphone.

In court, the retailer can only ask to appoint a forensic examination to determine the real causes of the malfunction. The seller also has the opportunity to analyze previously considered claims involving the consumer and present to the court a "working scheme" for enrichment. Thus, the most difficult type of consumer terrorism is enrichment due to the breakdown of a technically complex product, since in such disputes it is very difficult for the seller to prove that the malfunction is not a manufacturing defect.

From Article 45 of the Law "On the Protection of Consumer Rights" it follows that public organizations have the right to inspect the work of trade organizations and the right to apply to the courts with statements in defense of the rights of both individual consumers and an indefinite circle of consumers.

One of the communication schemes of such organizations with sellers is as follows:

Representatives of public organizations for the protection of consumer rights visit various retail outlets, compile a list of violations discovered and, on the basis of Article 45, apply to the court with demands to recognize the seller's actions as illegal and to reimburse the costs of conducting an examination, legal services provided when filing a claim and the participation of a lawyer in the court hearing. In this case, the lawyer is actually an employee of the organization itself, although for the sake of appearances, a contract for the provision of legal services is concluded with him.

Thus, in case No. 2-8465/2018, considered by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the regional branch of the all-Russian public movement for the protection of the rights and interests of consumers "Association of Consumers of Russia" in Krasnodar Krai (hereinafter - the consumer association), acting in the interests of Khil E.A., filed the above-mentioned claim with the court against AO Sony Electronics. In the claim, the consumer association stated that Khil purchased a Sony headphone amplifier from OnlineTrade LLC, which has a 12-month warranty, and discovered defects during operation.

The consumer association demanded that the company pay the money paid for the defective product in the amount of 40,990 rubles, a penalty in the amount of 103,704 rubles, compensation for moral damages in the amount of 10,000 rubles, postal expenses in the amount of 426 rubles, the cost of paying for the services of a representative in the amount of 10,000 rubles, and also collect a fine in favor of Khil and in favor of the consumer association for violating consumer rights.

By the decision and ruling of the courts of first and second instance, the claims were partially satisfied, since after the defendant received the claim, the company repeatedly tried to contact the plaintiff at the address and telephone number indicated in the claim. However, all attempts were unsuccessful, since the address was fictitious. Moreover, after unsuccessful attempts to contact the plaintiff, the defendant sent him a postal money order, but the plaintiff evaded receiving the order.

In addition to the above, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation noted that the expert’s conclusion, which was taken into account by lower courts, which established that the cause of the defect was a manufacturing defect of the manufacturer, contains contradictions.

In overturning the decisions of lower courts, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation noted that bodies and organizations vested with the right to apply to court to protect the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of other persons have all the necessary potential for the independent implementation of this right, and the costs incurred to pay for their services for representing a consumer cannot be considered as costs necessary for access to justice, and, therefore, cannot be attributed to legal costs. (Definition of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of January 28, 2020 No. 18-KG19-139, 2-8465/2018).

A very common situation is when there is collusion between consumers, expert institutions and consumer protection centers: Expert institutions conduct an examination confirming that the purchased product, most often a smartphone, TV, radio station or laptop, has a manufacturing defect. In fact, the said defect is “created” by the consumer himself or the service center to which the consumer applies with such a task. The problem with pre-trial examinations is that, although the expert is responsible for giving knowingly false testimony, it is very difficult to prove that this is a fraud and not a mistake, that is, in fact, there is no responsibility.

A conspiracy between a consumer protection center and a consumer is concluded in an agreement to initiate a case and distribute the awarded amounts between the participants in the conspiracy. In such cases, a representative of the center, acting on behalf of the "injured" consumer, usually comes to court.

The most common violations in the field of shared construction:

In the shared construction market in Russia, consumer extremism has arisen due to violations of construction deadlines and quality by unscrupulous developers. Until a certain point, this was a useful tool that allowed participants in shared construction to fight for their right to receive the apartment of due quality and within the stipulated timeframe promised under the participation agreement (DDU).

However, the wave of consumer extremism has surpassed reasonable levels and today poses a danger not only to individual unscrupulous developers, but also to the housing construction market as a whole, which is going through hard times due to the transition from shared construction to project financing.

According to the SPARK database, in 2021, arbitration courts satisfied more than 2.7 thousand claims related to the collection of penalties under DDUs, the plaintiffs won 3.6 billion rubles in these disputes. Of the claims filed in 2022, more than a thousand have already been satisfied, according to them, developers must pay equity holders and their representatives about 2.9 billion rubles.

The most common cases of consumer extremism in the preschool education sector:

Sale by citizens-participants of the DDU of the right to demand a penalty under a contract with an expired deadline for the delivery of housing. Conscientious developers are interested in delivering the objects on time and handing over the keys to the owners. Only in this case will they make a profit and be able to start the next projects. However, at the design stage it is difficult to foresee all possible risks and changes. If difficulties arise with the delivery of housing, the developer is interested in a quick pre-trial resolution of all contentious issues. It is at this stage that "consumer terrorism" appears.

In case of delay in delivery of housing, the developer is obliged to pay a penalty to the citizen. But the citizen, for a small fee, can transfer the right to demand payment of the penalty to unscrupulous lawyers who use such demands to obtain unjustified benefits and file lawsuits against developers for significant amounts.

In this case, the equity holder is interested in the fastest possible compensation for his actual losses, and the groups of lawyers acquiring such claims are interested in extracting maximum profit from a large number of identical lawsuits with developers.

It is in these areas that the current legislation allows the equity holder to recover maximum property sanctions from the developer, in accordance with the Law “On the Protection of Consumer Rights”.

Therefore, in order to reduce such types of “entrepreneurial” activity on the part of lawyers, legislators have created an administrative barrier to the execution of such transactions in the form of the obligation of the parties to register the assignment of the right to claim a penalty on the basis of paragraph 2 of Article 389 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

Splitting the periods of accrual of penalties for repeated collection of fines, legal costs and damages.

In the event of a delay by the developer in the delivery of a shared construction project, the citizen participating in the shared construction agreement has the right to accrue a penalty until the moment of actual fulfillment of the obligation by the developer.

This circumstance gives rise to two possible actions for the shareholder:

a) a citizen may wait until the end of the penalty accrual period, which ends at the moment the developer actually fulfills its obligation, and file a lawsuit to recover the penalty for the entire period of delay;

b) a citizen can file lawsuits in court to collect penalties before the property is handed over by the developer, thus dividing the time periods for accrual, as well as increasing legal costs and collecting fines multiple times.

Delay by a citizen-participant in a DDU of the deadline for accepting an object in order to increase the amount of the penalty.

In order to increase the size of the financial penalty, citizens can delay accepting the shared construction project, based, for example, on the discovery of minor defects, thus creating or increasing the developer’s delay.

Similar schemes were also noticed by government agencies, so at the end of March 2022, on the initiative of the Russian Ministry of Construction, the Government adopted Resolution No. 442 “On establishing the specifics of transferring a shared construction project to a shared construction participant.”

In accordance with this regulatory document, deficiencies are now divided into significant and non-significant.

If the equity holder finds minor defects in the apartment, he still signs the acceptance certificate and indicates the defects in the certificate. The developer must eliminate them free of charge within 60 calendar days. The equity holder now has the right not to sign the acceptance certificate only if there are significant defects.

Moreover, before the government decree was adopted, a shareholder could involve any expert of his choice to inspect the apartment upon acceptance. Now only the developer can involve an expert.

The most common violations in the catering industry:

In recent years, the number of so-called “professional defaulters” in the restaurant business has increased in Russia.

Consumers often complain that they were not served what they ordered or pretend to be dissatisfied with the cleanliness of the dishes and the quality of the prepared dish - in general, they increasingly try to avoid paying the bill or at least get a discount.

Restaurant owners explain that they try to settle many disputes out of court to avoid reputational losses and high costs of litigation - for example, the authorized representative in the restaurant business in Moscow, restaurateur, founder of the chain "Meat & Fish" Sergei Mironov says that "litigation will be 20 times higher than the cost of the unpaid order."

However, in some cases the case does reach the court. For example, the Oryol Regional Court considered a case on a citizen's claim to protect the interests of minor children. The plaintiff filed a claim with the court, explaining that on January 5, 2020, she visited the Zhar Pizza cafe with her entire family, after which her daughter showed signs of poisoning, weakness, abdominal pain, and vomiting.

Subsequently, symptoms of poisoning appeared in her, her husband and son. On January 6, 2020, the minor daughter was hospitalized in the infectious diseases hospital with dehydration. However, the plaintiff, her son Daniil and her husband were not hospitalized, since their symptoms of poisoning were not very pronounced.

During the initial review, the court satisfied the claim, and the defendant was ordered to pay about 200 thousand rubles to compensate for the cost of medications, moral damages, etc. However, after the case was sent for a new review, the courts refused to satisfy the claim due to the lack of evidence of a causal link between visiting a catering establishment and the appearance of poisoning symptoms (Determination of the First Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction dated 02.03.2022 in case No. 88-5631/2022).

But in the Vologda region there was an example of a court ruling in favor of the consumer: citizens filed a claim against Sadko LLC for compensation for material damage and compensation for moral harm. In substantiating their claims, the plaintiffs referred to the fact that on September 21, 2018, they celebrated their anniversary birthday at the Derevyashka cafe..

After visiting the café, consumers with signs of severe poisoning were taken to the first infectious diseases department of the Vologda Regional Clinical Hospital No. 2, where doctors diagnosed them with salmonellosis.

The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Sadko LLC for compensation for moral damage and material losses, demanding more than a million rubles. The courts of three instances partially satisfied the claim, and about 300 thousand rubles were collected from the defendant.

The courts indicated that during an inspection of the Derevyashka café, Rospotrebnadzor confirmed violations of sanitary and epidemiological rules (Determination of the Third Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction dated July 20, 2020 No. 88-5258/2020).

Thus, it can be concluded that the courts' practice is not uniform in this category of cases. In addition, in a number of cases, catering establishments themselves initiate disputes with consumers, trying to collect unpaid bills. Thus, Article 7.27.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation provides for administrative liability in the form of a fine for failure to pay a restaurant bill, the amount of which may be five times the amount of the bill (but not less than 5 thousand rubles).

A similar case happened to a resident of Severodvinsk. In December 2015, he failed to pay a bill of 2.3 thousand rubles at a local bar. In its defense, the establishment presented a report on an administrative offense drawn up by police officers, a certificate of the amount of damage caused, and a statement from the bar administrator. This was enough to prove the visitor's guilt, and as a result, the court sentenced him to a fine of nine thousand rubles.

Ways to combat consumer extremism:

It is important to understand that if a seller aims to avoid such lawsuits, it is necessary to initially build a sales system in such a way as to simultaneously reduce the risks of sellers and not violate the rights of consumers.

It is recommended to use the following simple rules that can reduce the number of such claims:

1. The seller must check all sales processes for compliance with the requirements of laws and regulations, examine the presence of any defects in the goods sold or services provided. It is also important to check the presence of labels containing the rules for using the goods in order to subsequently avoid unfounded claims from the consumer.
2. Carefully develop the terms of a standard contract taking into account consumer rights and to reduce risks in the company's activities.
3. To secure the need for documentary registration of the transfer of goods, for example, by signing the invoice for the goods, the act of acceptance and transfer of goods, as well as the need to obtain the buyer's signature on the absence of defects in the goods and an explanation of the rules for using the goods.
4. Monitor the relevance of information about the legal and actual location of the seller, inform the consumer about the procedure and methods for filing claims.
5. Improve legal literacy of employees: organize training for employees on consumer protection, develop instructions for reviewing customer claims. Pre-trial dispute resolution.

If, after purchasing a product, the consumer nevertheless finds defects in it, he has every right to contact the seller with a demand to replace the product, reduce the purchase price, eliminate the defects, or has the right to completely cancel the contract and demand a refund of the price paid.

In this case, the seller should not forget that this is a pre-trial procedure, which can often be completed by settling the conflict. Resolving the conflict at this stage will also help avoid litigation. To do everything correctly, we recommend the following:

1. Each case must be assessed in terms of the significance of the deficiencies, the validity of the claims, and the consequences for the company if the buyer's demands are not met.
2. Carefully monitor the receipt of claims, carefully study and analyze their content: the deficiencies referred to by the consumer, the requirements stated by him, as well as the documents attached to the claim.
3. Pay attention to compliance with the evidence base confirming the existing deficiencies and the cause-and-effect relationship between such deficiencies and the actions of the seller.
4. Respond to pre-trial consumer claims in a timely manner: if the consumer asks to replace the product, it is necessary to respond within seven calendar days; if the consumer asks to return the cost of the product, reduce the price, or reimburse the costs of repairing the product, it is necessary to respond within ten calendar days. If there is no response within the time limit, the consumer will be able to recover a penalty from the seller in the amount of 1% of the price of the product for each day of delay (Article 23 of the Law "On the Protection of Consumer Rights"). If the seller cannot respond within the time limit or satisfy the buyer's demands, it is necessary to notify the consumer about this in advance.
5. If it is obvious that the consumer is wrong and is abusing his rights, it is necessary to respond to his claims within the framework of current legislation, where the seller's position and the groundlessness of the stated demands are confirmed, since this will allow the consumer to see the weakness of his position and reduce the risk of him going to court.
6. It is important to send claims by registered mail with a delivery confirmation so that there is proof that the consumer has received the response. You can also draw up a document in two copies and ask the consumer to make a note of receipt. The copy with the consumer's note should be kept until the deadline for holding the entrepreneur liable for violating consumer rights expires. Sometimes a letter sent late can cause serious losses for the company.
7. If similar consumer complaints are received, it is necessary to evaluate the actions of consumers from the point of view of possible fraud and extremism on their part.

Consumer litigation:

When consumer claims are not satisfied out of court, one should expect the consumer to apply to the court with a claim for recovery of the cost of the goods, a fine, a penalty and compensation for moral damages.

In such a situation, the seller should adhere to the following recommendations, which can contribute to a positive outcome of the court decision:

1. Participate in court hearings to provide evidence of the groundlessness of the stated claims. A properly developed strategy will help prove the absence of violations on the part of the seller, significantly reduce the penalty, protect the reputation and recover money spent on legal costs from the dishonest consumer.
2. Submit to the court documents confirming that responses to claims and demands for the provision of goods for examination have been sent to the consumer.
3. Assess whether the consumer was pursuing commercial goals when purchasing the product (in this case, the status of consumer does not apply to the plaintiff); analyze judicial practice in which the plaintiff has already participated, since the presence of evidence of the plaintiff's appeal on similar claims with similar faults may indicate an abuse of rights.
4. In the response to the statement of claim, ask the court to apply Article 333 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, to reduce the amount of the penalty, fine and moral damages, since their total amount often significantly exceeds the cost of the goods.

Forensic examination in the context of a dispute with a consumer:

An effective way to combat consumer terrorism is to conduct a forensic examination within the framework of the trial. It is important to convey to the court that unscrupulous consumers use "their" expert institutions both for pre-trial examinations and forensic examinations.

Employees of “their” expert institutions often conclude that the defect in the goods is a manufacturing defect, and this leads to the need for the seller to fulfill all the consumer’s demands within the framework of the dispute.

Therefore, when filing a petition for the appointment of a forensic examination, it is necessary to contact the expert institution in advance and discuss all the details of the examination, and also request that an expert be sent to conduct a thorough analysis of the signs of the occurrence of the specified malfunction.

In particular, it is necessary to convey to the expert institution the unfair nature of the consumer’s actions, showing similar judicial practice of the plaintiff, where he encounters the same problems with the purchased equipment.

When asking questions to an expert in a dispute over the protection of consumer rights in the field of electronic equipment or other household goods, it is important to focus on the following circumstances:

• emphasis on the study of the cause-and-effect relationship between the actions of the seller and the defects that have arisen in the product;
• emphasis on the causes of malfunctions, determining the period of their occurrence;
• emphasis on determining the significance of the faults found and the cost of replacing the faults;
• examination of the product itself for damage, dents and other defects that could indicate improper use of the product.

In the event that an expert opinion is prepared that is not in favor of the seller, it is important to formulate questions for the expert who conducted the examination in order to obtain a detailed justification for the conclusions made.

Commentary by the head of bankruptcy practice D.G. Sablukov

The provisions of the Law on Consumer Rights Protection, which are used by unscrupulous consumers in retail, thus creating problems for businesses:

1) Clause 4, Article 26.1 of the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights: the consumer has the right to refuse the goods at any time before their transfer, and after the transfer of the goods - within seven days. How do consumers use this rule:

1) the consumer makes a claim for the return of a product of proper quality within seven days, without returning the product to the seller and continuing to use the product

2) the seller is deprived of the opportunity to check whether the goods have retained their consumer properties and presentation

3) after the refusal to return the money, the consumer applies to the court with a demand for a refund of the cost of the goods, a penalty of 1% per day, and a fine. How should this rule work in accordance with the Definition of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated January 25, 2022 No. 49-KG21-34-K6:

The provisions of paragraphs 4, 5 26.1. of the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights establish a certain sequence of actions for the buyer when refusing a product of proper quality purchased remotely:

1.1. the consumer must promptly declare his/her refusal of the goods;

1.2. the consumer must provide the seller with the opportunity to check the returned goods for the preservation of their presentation, consumer properties, including their quantity (volume).

1.3. perform actual actions to transfer the given goods to the seller.

2. In case of refusal of goods of proper quality, a penalty for violation of the refund period in the amount of 1 percent of the cost of the goods is not subject to collection.

2) paragraph 2, clause 6, article 18 of the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights: in relation to goods for which a warranty period has been established, the seller (manufacturer), authorized organization or authorized individual entrepreneur, importer is liable for defects in the goods, unless they prove that they arose after the transfer of the goods to the consumer due to the consumer's violation of the rules for the use, storage or transportation of the goods, actions of third parties or force majeure. This rule is also used by unscrupulous consumers, since it is extremely difficult to establish the operational nature of the declared defects.

Thus, according to paragraph 2 of clause 5 of Article 18 of the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights: The seller (manufacturer), authorized organization or authorized individual entrepreneur, importer are obliged to accept goods of inadequate quality from the consumer and, if necessary, conduct a quality check of the goods.

The consumer has the right to participate in the quality check of the goods. It is important to pay attention to the Definition of the Civil Division of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of April 6, 2021 No. 8-KG21-1-K2, of May 11, 2021 No. 18-KG21-20-K4, which establish that if the consumer fails to fulfill the obligation to submit the goods for quality check, the court refuses to collect the fine. 3) Clause 1 of Article 23 of the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights: establishing a penalty in the amount of 1 percent per day of the cost of the goods for violation of the deadline for satisfying the consumer's claim. An unscrupulous consumer uses this rule in the following cases:

1. Possibility of collecting a penalty until the date of actual satisfaction of the consumer's claim without limitation on the amount. (Determination of the Judicial Collegium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated December 22, 2020 No. 46-KG20-24-K6)

2. The possibility of imposing a penalty for each violation of the law on consumer protection. (Clause 32 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 28.06.2012 No. 17 "On the consideration by courts of civil cases on disputes on the protection of consumer rights")

4) Clause 6, Article 13 of the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights: establishing a penalty in the amount of 1 percent per day of the cost of the goods for violating the deadline for satisfying consumers' demands. Illegal consumers use this rule, since the possibility of collecting a fine is not a one-time sanction (Determination of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated June 25, 2019 No. 77-KG19-9).