Introducing a new function in an online store's interface requires coordination between technology and law. The process involves the consumer being able to initiate and confirm their choice directly on the website, which should then be registered in the systems and trigger an automatic receipt. Despite this, the project has not been at the top of the agenda for many companies.
My opinion is that the right of withdrawal function has not been considered a "major change" by e-commerce companies and therefore has not been prioritized. In practice, it may require technical changes to the site and it requires that as an e-commerce company you are aware of the legal requirements that apply to the function. My colleagues and I who work in our e-commerce law team have been informing about this change for a long time to prepare e-commerce companies for this, she says.
Terms And Conditions Determine Who Pays
One of the questions that has been most discussed among e-commerce companies concerns the financial transactions surrounding return shipping.
Since the law establishes that it must be free to use the right of withdrawal button itself, misunderstandings have arisen as to whether the consumer is entitled to free shipping back to the warehouse.
In an interview with Ehandel.se yesterday, Jennie Gerum, Marketing Manager at the return platform Inretrn, highlighted the risks of this very thing. She stated that Swedish e-commerce already loses 7.3 billion SEK annually on returns. According to her, new financial leaks may occur if companies do not adapt their agreements, as an online store without the correct wording is forced to pay the entire return shipping when the customer cancels the purchase.
Agnes Hammarstrand confirms the legal picture and clarifies that the physical transport cost follows the same principle as before, provided that the online store's contract texts are correctly formulated.
The rules regarding who pays for return shipping do not change. The rules regarding the right of withdrawal as such apply in the same way as before - the right of withdrawal function is only a new way for the consumer to be able to cancel. The retailer can still require the customer to pay for return shipping provided that the retailer has provided clear information about this before the purchase, she explains.
To avoid being hit by unexpected costs due to ambiguities, she emphasizes the importance of reviewing the company's texts.
I recommend e-commerce companies to take the opportunity to review the information they have previously about the right of withdrawal - so that the information complies with the law.
Technical Solutions Are Confused With Forms
The legal requirements for the new two-step function differ from the documents that e-commerce companies have previously been required to provide. Only offering a link or placing a button in the wrong part of the customer journey are examples of solutions that do not meet the new criteria of the law.
When Agnes Hammarstrand describes the most common misunderstandings among the companies she meets, she points to the confusion of old and new rules.
Many confuse the new technical function with the standard form for the right of withdrawal (withdrawal form). The requirement to provide the withdrawal form is a separate requirement that has applied previously. It is also a common misconception that the usual "return form" that some e-commerce companies have had before is sufficient - if you want to use this type of function as your "right of withdrawal function", it is important to ensure that you comply with the new requirements, says Agnes Hammarstrand and concludes with:
My experience is also that many believe that it is enough to send a link via the order confirmation or have information in the form of a button or link in the checkout, which is not enough to comply with the requirements.