At the turn of the year, we discussed how the Consumer Protection Act (38/1978, as amended) is entering the digital age following the implementation of the EU’s Sales of Goods Directive (2019/771) and the Digital Content and Digital Services Directive (2019/770) into national legislation (see here and here). Now, further amendments lie ahead when the so-called Omnibus Directive (2019/2161) is implemented into national legislation. The new provisions of the Consumer Protection Act will enter into force on 1 January 2023 in order to allow companies to prepare for the new requirements.
12.8.2022
New Amendments to the Consumer Protection Act in January 2023: National Implementation of the Omnibus Directive Leading to Major Changes for Businesses
Hilma-Karoliina Rozell & Piia Raappana
The Omnibus Directive aims to improve remedies for consumers, remove any shortcomings and inconsistencies of the provisions and lay down penalties in the event of infringements of certain directives. In this article, we will highlight the key amendments based on the Omnibus Directive of which businesses trading with consumers should be aware.
Reforms on price reduction announcements
Amendments to chapter 2 section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act will revise the regulation on price reduction announcements.
New extensions to the right of withdrawal in door-to-door selling
The new provision in chapter 6 of the Consumer Protection Act includes extensions to the consumers’ right of withdrawal in door-to-door selling. In this respect the regulation is purely national and not based on the Omnibus Directive.
Regulation on consumer reviews
The Omnibus Directive also affects the consumer reviews published by the businesses themselves.
1. provide fake consumer reviews or endorsements;
2. purchase reviews or endorsements;
3. misrepresent consumer reviews or social endorsements.
Information requirements for marketplace providers
The Consumer Protection Act will also include new information requirements for providers of online marketplaces. An ‘online marketplace’ means a virtual marketplace that allows consumers to conclude distance contracts with other consumers or businesses.
Compensation for damages caused by unfair marketing and practices
Following the Omnibus Directive, consumers may have the right to compensation for any damage caused by the business to the consumer by unfair marketing or unfair commercial practices. This kind of damage can, for example, include travel expenses incurred by the consumer. In addition, the consumer may be entitled to a reasonable price reduction if the trader has acted unfairly, for example by marketing aggressively or misleadingly.
Written confirmation procedure for telemarketing
Parliament has also accepted new legislation on telemarketing, which also enters into force on 1 January 2023. This national regulation is not based on the Omnibus Directive.
This regulation will include an obligation to implement a written confirmation procedure. In other words, after making an offer to a consumer during a call, telemarketers would, in principle, have to provide the consumer with the offer in a permanent form, for example as an email attachment. Unless the consumer accepts the offer in a permanent manner after the call, the contract is not binding on the consumer. Neglecting to use the confirmation procedure could result in penalty payments for the trader.
Latest news
Latest references
Fortum – AI workshop
We delivered two AI workshops for Fortum Corporation’s Mergers and Acquisitions team, with both legal and business professionals participating. The sessions combined fundamental AI principles with custom use cases for commercially available AI tools tailored to Fortum’s needs. We also presented a bespoke solution merging AI with a script-based tool developed by our Legal Tech team, enabling a more automated way of working. Our experts conducted the training drawing on their legal background and leading experience in this emerging field of legal technology. Participants particularly appreciated the clarity and relevance of the implementations demonstrated. ‘C&S delivered an excellent, well-structured series of workshops, with directly applicable takeaways,’ says Sabina Hautaviita, Legal Counsel for M&A at Fortum.
Case published 9.3.2026
VR – Supreme Court decision clarifies working time practices
We successfully represented VR Group before the Supreme Court in a case concerning the meal break practice of commuter train drivers. On 6 February 2026, the Supreme Court ruled in VR’s favour (decision KKO:2026:12), confirming that VR had the right to amend the commuter train drivers’ meal break practice in 2021 by rendering the break unpaid in accordance with the applicable collective agreement. This decision clarifies the interpretation of collective agreements and employment legislation as well as the limits of the employer’s right to direct work. Over 250 commuter train drivers challenged the unpaid meal break practice which VR introduced in April 2021. Before the change, meal breaks had a long history of being paid. The change was based on the train drivers’ collective agreement, which allows for meal breaks to be organised either as paid or unpaid time. The Supreme Court ruled that the scheduling and managing of breaks falls within the core area of the employer’s right to direct work. This increases the threshold for an established practice becoming a binding condition for the parties. Merely following a practice consistently and over a long period of time does not make the practice binding; instead, the employer’s intent to commit to the practice must be clearly evident from the employer’s conduct or other circumstances. As both alternatives – paid and unpaid – for organising meal breaks had been retained in the collective agreement despite other amendments over the years, it could not be considered that VR had intended to commit to the paid break practice and waive its right to direct work as regards break scheduling. It was also significant that the employment contracts explicitly referred only to the collective agreement as regards working time. The Supreme Court deemed that the employees’ paid meal break was not an established term of employment and that VR was entitled to change the practice based on the collective agreement. The employer had the right, by virtue of its right to direct work, to unilaterally change the meal break practice by choosing to apply the other arrangement permitted by the collective agreement.
Case published 3.3.2026
CapMan Growth – Investment in Kuntokeskus Liikku
We are assisting CapMan Growth in its significant investment in Kuntokeskus Liikku, a Finnish gym chain known for its high-quality self-service facilities and excellent value for money. The investment will further strengthen Liikku’s position as a market leader and support the continued execution of its growth strategy. Liikku is one of Finland’s leading fitness chains, with more than 70 locations across the country serving nearly 90,000 members. The company’s concept is to offer high-quality self-service gyms at an exceptionally competitive price point which, combined with strong operational efficiency, provides a solid foundation for profitable growth. The company’s main shareholder is COR Group, a long-time partner of CapMan Growth, and a Finnish health and wellness conglomerate known for active ownership and long-term value creation. CapMan Growth is a leading Finnish growth investor that makes significant investments in entrepreneur-led growth companies with a turnover of €10–200 million. CapMan Growth is part of CapMan, which is a leading Nordic private equity investor engaged in active value creation work. CapMan has been listed on the Helsinki Stock Exchange since 2001.
Case published 27.2.2026
Terrafame – Environmental and water management permit processes concerning the company’s entire operations and the KL1 side rock area
Castrén & Snellman successfully assisted Terrafame Ltd in environmental and water management permit processes concerning the company’s entire operations and the KL1 side rock area, on which the Supreme Administrative Court issued its decision on 12 February 2026 (KHO 366/2026 and 367/2026). The changes made to the decisions of the Vaasa Administrative Court as a result of Terrafame’s appeals, enable the company to implement its new strategy and develop its operations as planned. The decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court brought the nearly ten-year-long permit process to a close.
Case published 20.2.2026