The Case
Our client was a home textiles manufacturer selling on Wildberries and Ozon. One morning, they logged into their seller dashboard to find an unwelcome surprise: the marketplace had unilaterally withheld 1,420,000 rubles from their account.
The official reason cited: “discrepancy between declared and actual package dimensions at warehouse intake,” plus a fine for alleged “self-purchases” flagged by an algorithm.
The seller spent hours submitting support tickets and sending product photos with a ruler for scale. The response was scripted:
“The algorithm recorded a discrepancy. Recalculation is not available under the terms of the offer.”
After two weeks of fruitless correspondence, the seller came to us.
Why Automated Marketplace Fines Can Be Challenged
The core legal vulnerability of marketplaces in court is the absence of credible evidence of an actual violation. Automated systems make mistakes: goods may be measured in a crushed box, scanners misfire, and algorithms flag “self-purchases” based on indirect signals without real verification.
If the platform cannot prove the violation actually occurred, the withheld amount constitutes unjust enrichment under Article 1102 of the Russian Civil Code.
The marketplace’s offer agreement does not override the Civil Code. A clause stating “recalculation is not available” does not exempt the platform from its burden of proving each fine in court.
The Defense Strategy: 4 Steps
Step 1. Pre-Litigation Demand
We sent a formal written demand requiring the marketplace to produce evidence of the violations — measurement reports with photographs, and the methodology of its self-purchase detection algorithm. Most platforms ignore such requests, which automatically strengthens our position in court.
Step 2. Building the Evidence Base
We gathered documents refuting the marketplace’s claims:
- photographs of the goods with a certified measuring tool,
- packaging specifications and technical data sheets,
- delivery notes and warehouse intake records,
- sales history (to counter the self-purchase allegation).
Step 3. Dismantling the Self-Purchase Allegation
“Self-purchases” are a legal gray zone for marketplaces. Algorithms frequently misclassify purchases by family members, employees, or regional distributors. The platform is required to prove the scheme — not simply cite an algorithm’s output.
Step 4. Filing in Arbitration Court
We filed a claim to recover:
- the amount of unjust enrichment (Article 1102 of the Civil Code),
- interest for use of third-party funds (Article 395 of the Civil Code),
- all legal costs.
The Outcome
The court ruled in favor of the seller:
- 1,420,000 rubles — full return of withheld fines ordered,
- 84,000 rubles — interest for use of funds,
- court fees and legal costs — entirely borne by the marketplace.
The Bottom Line
Don’t be afraid to challenge marketplace platforms. Their offer agreements do not place them above the law. If funds were withheld based on an algorithm and there is no evidence of an actual violation, that money can — and should — be recovered through arbitration court.
Building your evidence base correctly before filing is critical: this is the stage where most sellers lose their chance at winning.
Read Also
- Legal Strategy for Marketplace Sellers After a Warehouse Fire: Four Tools That Work
- Warehouse Fire at a Marketplace: Sellers’ Rights and 4 Myths That Block Compensation
If a marketplace has withheld funds from your account without justification, contact us for a written legal opinion. We will review the grounds for the fine, assess your chances of recovery, and develop a defense strategy.