The consumer’s joy is often the retailer’s sorrow – especially when it comes to returns. When it comes to returns, retailers are not only faced with a logistical burden, but also financial losses due to the reduced resale value of returned items. Perhaps you have already toyed with the idea of excluding consumers with a (too) high returns rate from your customer base, refusing them further contracts and, if necessary, blocking access to existing customer accounts. But is this legally permissible? Our guest article gets to the bottom of this question.
Legal basis for returns in the online store
If consumers want to return goods ordered from you as a retailer, there are various legal bases for this:
When can I exclude customers from my online store due to returns?
If you as a retailer are no longer interested in a customer relationship due to numerous returns and do not wish to enter into any further contracts with the consumer in question, this is not always legally permissible.
Rather, your entitlement to exclude the buyer and to take follow-up measures (such as blocking the account) always depends on the legal grounds for the return.
In principle, your virtual domiciliary right in the store or your right to freedom of contract and the legally recognized consumer protection interests are in conflict here.
A distinction must be made between three cases:
Three legal grounds for returns
1) Cancellation-related returns
Consumers who make intensive use of their statutory rights of withdrawal and subsequently have many contracts rescinded must not be deterred by you from concluding future contracts.
The reason: The right of withdrawal to which the consumer is legally entitled is not bound by any numerical limits. Each new order gives rise to a separate right of withdrawal, which you as a retailer cannot waive.
Otherwise, you would penalize the consumer for exercising their rights and possibly prevent them from exercising their right of withdrawal in the future.
It would therefore also be inadmissible to hold the customer exclusion against excessive revocation in the general terms and conditions. A corresponding clause would always be ineffective due to a so-called “unreasonable disadvantage” and could be warned.
Note on the abusive exercise of the right of withdrawal
Something else may only apply in individual cases if consumers exercise their right of withdrawal “in abuse of rights”. In this case, you could justifiably reject future contractual relationships.
However, an abuse of rights does not already exist with an increased withdrawal rate, but only if the consumer deliberately wants to harm or harass you with a withdrawal request.
However, since you as the retailer would have to prove this in case of doubt, such cases are hardly enforceable.
2) Warranty-related returns
What applies to returns due to revocation also applies to justified returns due to defects.
If consumers withdraw from the contract due to a material defect, you may not penalize them with an exclusion.
As a retailer, you are prohibited from deviating from the statutory warranty standard to the detriment of consumers. However, excluding consumers as a retaliatory measure for warranty claims would be just such a detrimental deviation.
The situation is different in the case of repeated unjustified complaints. If it turns out that an item complained about was not defective at all and claims of defects are therefore not tenable, you can rightly refuse to conclude future contracts if such cases occur repeatedly.
3) Returns due to voluntary right of return
If you grant consumers a voluntary right of return, the situation is different:
Because this right is a voluntary additional benefit on your part, you can structure and regulate it as you wish within certain legal limits.
Voluntary rights of return are therefore outside the scope of mandatory consumer protection standards. In the event of excessive use by consumers, your decision to refuse to conclude contracts in the future and to take the necessary measures cannot be legally objected to.
If consumers make excessive use of contractual rights of return, you may exclude them from your customer base in future.
Examples of customer blocking due to excessive returns
To illustrate these complex legal cases, it is worth taking a look at the following three examples:
Case 1
Consumer X returns 10 orders on the basis of a right of withdrawal, in each case within 13 days of the declaration of withdrawal. Although retailer Y grants a longer voluntary right of return, X does not make use of this. Is blocking X permissible?
No, as revocation-related sanctions are not legal.
Case 2
Consumer X returns 5 orders within the statutory withdrawal period and 10 orders due to a contractual right of return from retailer Y. Is blocking X permissible?
Yes, because X makes excessive use of Y’s voluntarily granted right of return.
Case 3
Consumer X returns 10 orders on the basis of a right of withdrawal, each within 13 days of the declaration of withdrawal, and 2 orders later on the basis of a contractual right of return from retailer Y. Is blocking of X permissible?
No. Only returns due to the voluntary right of return may be taken into account for “excessiveness”. 2 returns are not yet considered excessive.
Conclusion
Your right to exclude consumers from the customer base, to refuse future contractual relationships or even to block customer accounts always depends on the legal basis for the returns.
To avoid returns, it is worth taking precautions: These can be concrete, clear and descriptive product descriptions or virtual test options. On the other hand, in the event of repeated returns, your decision to show goodwill can always be an advantage for a long-term customer relationship.
If you have any further questions about returns or the handling of statutory customer rights, the IT law firm will be happy to assist you personally:
