30.10.2023

Consumer Protection Act has been reformed – what should online stores know about it?

The Consumer Protection Act was reformed on 1 October 2023 in a manner that affects online stores. The reforms concern the presentation of different payment methods and authenticating the consumers’ identity in distance selling.

Payment methods must be presented in a certain order

The Consumer Protection Act will in future require that the payment methods available are presented in a certain order in distance selling:

  • The payment methods that do not include the possibility to apply for, or use, credit or other deferred payment methods must be presented first.
  • The payment methods that may include the possibility to apply for, or use of, credit or other deferred payment methods must be presented next.
  • The payment methods that involve the application for, or use of, credit or other deferred payment methods may only be presented last in the list.

However, this does not mean that online stores would have to offer all these payment methods, but the provision applies to the payment methods that they do offer to consumers from time to time. If a credit is the only payment method offered, it may in certain situations be deemed as an unreasonable contract term.

Furthermore, it will no longer be allowed to offer any payment method as a default in distance selling, but instead the consumers must actively select the payment method themselves, separately for each contract.

New obligation to authenticate consumers’ identity in distance selling

In future, the Consumer Protection Act will also require that the consumer’s identity is, as a rule, authenticated in distance selling if the consumer selects a payment method that defers the payment. According to the Consumer Protection Act, the consumer’s identity must be authenticated using an identification method that meets the requirements of the electronic identification system referred to in Section 8 of the Act on Strong Electronic Identification and Electronic Trust Services or the strong identification requirements referred to in Section 8, Paragraph 24 and Section 85 c, Subsection 4 of the Payment Services Act.

However, this new obligation to authenticate identity does not apply in the following situations:

  • Chapter 7 (Consumer credits) or Chapter 7 a (Consumer credits related to residential immovable property) of the Consumer Protection Act or the Payment Services Act is applied to the payment method selected by the consumer.
  • The consumer pays, in accordance with the contract, the purchase price when the goods are delivered.
  • The service under the contract will be carried out in some other way than through a means of distance communication and the service provider offers the deferred payment itself.
  • The question is of buying a commodity through telemarketing.

Practical impact of the reforms remains to be seen

The reforms of the Consumer Protection Act mentioned above are national legislation and not based on any EU Directives, for example. This raises the question of whether this kind of national legislation may hinder, for instance, the freedom to provide services within the EU.

Latest references

We successfully represented BMW in an exceptionally long dispute over whether the spare rims sold by the defendant and the hub caps included in them infringed BMW’s trademark and design rights. The Market Court found that the sign used by the defendant caused a likelihood of confusion with BMW’s trademarks. The defendant had used the sign on the hub caps and in the marketing of the hub caps and rims, leading the Market Court to find that the defendant had infringed BMW’s trademark rights. The defendant admitted to infringing BMW’s Community design but denied the related injunction claim. However, the Market Court found that there was no particular reason to refrain from issuing an injunction. The Market Court prohibited the defendant from continuing to infringe BMW’s trademarks and Community design and ordered the defendant to alter or destroy the products and marketing materials that infringed BMW’s rights. Furthermore, the Market Court ordered the defendant to pay BMW EUR 70,000 in reasonable compensation and EUR 80,000 in damages for the trademark infringements, as well as EUR 7,000 in reasonable compensation and EUR 8,000 in damages for the design right infringement. The amounts can be considered exceptionally high in Finland. Additionally, the Market Court ordered the defendant to pay a significant portion of BMW’s legal costs with interest on late payment. In its decision of 11 March 2025, the Supreme Court of Finland did not grant the defendant leave to appeal, and also decided that there was no need to seek a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union. Thus, the Market Court’s judgements (MAO:494/18 and 517/2023) are final. In addition to the main dispute, BMW demanded in a separate proceeding that one of the defendant’s trademark registrations be revoked. A total of three separate legal proceedings were conducted in the Market Court regarding the revocation. The defendant’s trademark registration was ultimately revoked.
Case published 9.5.2025
We are advising DNA Plc in brand protection and intellectual property enforcement matters globally. Our intellectual property team manages DNA’s global trademark portfolio, including registration, prosecution, opposition and enforcement. We also advise DNA in questions concerning consumer and marketing law, unfair competition, social media, domain names and cybersquatting. DNA Plc is one of Finland’s leading telecommunication companies. DNA offers connections, services and devices for homes and workplaces, contributing to the digitalisation of society. The company has approximately 3.7 million subscriptions in its fixed and mobile communications networks. In 2024, DNA’s total revenue was EUR 1,100 million, and the company employs about 1,600 people around Finland. DNA is part of Telenor Group.
Case published 7.5.2025
We are acting as legal advisor to Piippo Plc in the sale of their bale netwrap and baler twine machines, related assets, and trademarks used in Piippo’s business to Portuguese Cotesi S.A. The sale of assets will be carried out in two phases and the final completion of the transaction is expected to occur during the first quarter of 2026. Piippo Oyj’s core business is baling nets and twine and it is one of the leading suppliers in the industry globally. The company’s global distribution network covers more than 40 countries. The company’s shares are listed on the First North Growth Market Finland operated by Nasdaq Helsinki Oy. Founded in 1967, Cotesi is one of the world’s leading producers of synthetic and natural twines, nets and ropes, with operations in Europe, North America and South America and its main production plant in Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal.
Case published 17.4.2025
We successfully represented Onses Finland Oy before the Finnish Market Court in an exceptionally extensive dispute concerning alleged trademark infringement and unfair business practice. Our client, Onses Finland Oy, is a Finnish sports drink company and the owner of the sports drink brand ONSE. In the spring of 2023, the Polish beverage company OSHEE Polska Sp. z o.o. filed legal action against our client, alleging that the ONSE trademarks and product packaging infringed the OSHEE trademarks. The plaintiff’s secondary claims concerned alleged slavish imitation of the OSHEE sports drink packaging and exploitation of the reputation of the plaintiff. The plaintiff based its suit on registered trademarks as well as allegedly established and reputed figurative and three-dimensional trademarks. The Market Court rejected all of the plaintiff’s claims. The Market Court held that the marks invoked in the suit were neither established nor marks with a reputation in Finland. As regards the registered trademarks, the Market Court found that there was no likelihood of confusion between the OSHEE and ONSE trademarks. As to the secondary claims, the Market Court held that the sports drink packaging used by the plaintiff was a normal beverage bottle, the design of which was partly determined by functional factors. The Market Court also found that there were several blue sports drinks available on the market and that the plaintiff’s product was not the first blue sports drink on the market. The plaintiff failed to show that its product packaging was original or well-known to the average consumer at the time of the launch of our client’s ONSE sports drink product, and the Market Court thus rejected the claims on slavish imitation and exploitation of reputation. The Market Court ordered the plaintiff to pay all of our client’s legal costs with statutory interest.  In its decision of 28 March 2025, the Supreme Court of Finland did not grant OSHEE Polska leave to appeal. Thus, the Market Court’s judgment (MAO:280/2024) is final.
Case published 4.4.2025