Challenging the FAS Office decision to hold the largest online-retailer liable for violating advertising legislation

As part of the legal process, it was supposed to challenge the decision of the Federal Antimonopoly Service Office to hold the client liable for violating advertising legislation. The lawyers of the firm formed a legal position and proved that consent to receive messages may be expressed by the facts of signing up on the website and expressing consent to the terms of the Public Offer. The competition authority argued the opposite, citing extensive court practice. When resolving the dispute, the court agreed with the position of our lawyers that the message about granting a discount to the client is not an advertisement, but a mandatory notification of the client as to the change in the terms of the contract. Both these legal positions never appeared previously in the court practice.