Europe's Top Court Rules That Amazon Does Not Have to Offer a Phone Helpline in the EU
A German consumer group had claimed that Amazon's German website breached consumer protection laws by not giving consumers "an efficient means" to contact the company.
July 10, 2019 at 01:21 PM
2 minute read
The EU's top court, the European Court of Justice, has ruled that Amazon does not have to provide consumers with a helpline phone or fax number on its site, rejecting a claim brought by the German Federal Union of Consumer Organizations and Associations.
The German consumer association claimed that Amazon's German website breached consumer protection laws by not giving consumers "an efficient means" to contact the company, as it did not inform consumers in a "clear and comprehensible manner" about its phone and fax numbers.
Amazon has an automated callback facility and an online chat service, but the group said these were not sufficient to show that it had lived up to its legal obligations.
In a ruling handed down on Wednesday, the court rejected those claims.
"An e-commerce platform such as Amazon is not obliged in all cases to make a telephone number available to consumers before the conclusion of a contract," judges said.
The court said it is necessary to strike a balance between a high level of consumer protection and the competitiveness of enterprises. It also said Amazon is obliged to provide consumers with a means of communication allowing them to contact it quickly and to communicate with it efficiently so they can exercise their rights, including the right to cancel a purchase.
But the access Amazon provides was deemed enough.
Amazon welcomed the decision.
"We were always confident that our callback service is fast, efficient and customer-focused," the company said in a statement. "The ECJ has now confirmed that the possibilities we offer for establishing contact are in line with the spirit and purpose, as well as the requirements, of the Consumer Rights Directive."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFreshfields Takes on Syria's Brutal Legacy, But Will Victims Ever See Compensation?
4 minute readTikTok Faces European Commission Probe Over Alleged Meddling in Romanian Election
3 minute readHow Will M&A, Tech & Trump Shape Law Firm Growth in 2025? Global Leaders Share Their Insights
6 minute readFIFA Faces Legal Challenge Over Winning Saudi World Cup Bid Vetted by Clifford Chance
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 2Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 3Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
- 4Husch Blackwell, Foley Among Law Firms Opening Southeast Offices This Year
- 5In Lawsuit, Ex-Google Employee Says Company’s Layoffs Targeted Parents and Others on Leave
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250