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 Arctic Biomaterials Oy before the Finnish Market Court in an extensive dispute concerning alleged patent infringement and invalidity of the patent-in-suit. Our client has invented next-generation bioabsorbable composites that are engineered with Arctic Biomaterials’ X3 bioactive natural mineral fibers, offering robust, bioactive reinforcement for orthopedic implants. These advanced composites empower customers to create high-strength bioabsorbable solutions for the most demanding applications. Back in 2019, Purac Biochem B.V. alleged, among other things, that our client’s Evolvecomp product had infringed Purac Biochem B.V.’s European patent validated in Finland protecting a biocompatible composite and its use. Purac Biochem B.V. filed a preliminary injunction against our client under the Act on Securing the Provision of Evidence in Civil Cases Concerning Industrial Property Rights and Copyright (344/2000). The Finnish Market Court issued an ex-parte injunction against our client on 2 April 2019 (MAO:150/19) and a final injunction on 19 February 2020 (MAO:59/20). Our client had disputed Purac Biochem B.V.’s patent infringement claim from the beginning and claimed that the patent-in-suit was invalid. After five years of litigation, the Finnish Market Court handed down a ruling in the joined invalidity and infringement cases on 10 October 2024 (MAO:560/2024 and MAO:561/2024) declaring Purac Biochem B.V.’s patent invalid and dismissing Purac’s infringement action against Arctic Biomaterials. Also, the preliminary injunction based on an alleged patent infringement imposed against Arctic Biomaterials was cancelled. The Market Court declared Purac Biochem B.V.’s patent invalid due to a lack of inventive step. The Market Court applied the could-would method for determining whether the patent-in-suit is inventive or not. The could-would method is based on determining whether a person skilled in the art would (not simply could, but would) have made a specific improvement to prior solutions, based on the available prior art. The Market Court ruled that it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to solve the objective technical problem of the patent-in-suit in the manner presented in claim 1, using as a starting point the closest prior art (prior patent publication) and combining it with the teaching of another prior art publication. The decision is final.
Case published 29.1.2025
We acted as Finnish counsel to Pernod Ricard in the sale of a portfolio of local Nordic brands to Oy Hartwall Ab, an affiliate of the Danish group Royal Unibrew. Pernod Ricard is a worldwide leader in the spirits and wine industry. The local portfolio of brands includes spirits, liqueurs and Finnish wine brands, the best-known being the liqueur Minttu, along with their related production assets based in Turku, Finland. The closing of the transaction remains subject to customary conditions.
Case published 21.10.2024
We are acting as the lead counsel to Fortum in a cross-border transaction in which Fortum is selling its recycling and waste business. The business is sold to thematic impact investing firm Summa Equity through its portfolio company NG Group. The debt-free purchase price is approximately EUR 800 million. The transaction is subject to authority approval and customary closing conditions. Fortum’s recycling and waste business to be sold comprises municipal and industrial waste management and end-to-end plastics, metals, ash, slag and hazardous waste treatment and recycling services. These businesses are located in Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway and currently employ approximately 900 employees.
Case published 18.7.2024
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. The judgment (MAO:280/2024) is not final.
Case published 11.6.2024