The Marketplace’s Official Position
After warehouse fires, the platforms have taken a clear stance:
“UAV strikes are listed in the new offer agreement as force majeure. Financial payouts are not provided. Accept logistics discounts.”
At first glance — a legally sound defensive structure. On closer examination, it has three critical vulnerabilities that unravel systematically in arbitration court.
Vulnerability 1. Inequality of Bargaining Power (Article 428 of the Civil Code)
A marketplace’s offer agreement is a contract of adhesion: the seller cannot negotiate terms, only accept the entire agreement or refuse to work with the platform.
The law expressly provides that terms in such a contract which are clearly one-sided and fully exempt the stronger party from liability may be rescinded or modified at the request of the adhering party.
The provision “UAV = force majeure, no payouts” is a textbook example of an unconscionable term in a contract of adhesion. A court has the authority to declare it invalid or decline to apply it to the specific relationship at hand.
Vulnerability 2. The Burden of Proving Force Majeure (Article 401 of the Civil Code)
Force majeure is not simply the occurrence of an adverse event. Under Article 401 of the Civil Code, to be released from liability, a professional custodian must prove in court:
- The event was objectively unavoidable under the given conditions.
- It took all exhaustive measures to prevent or minimize the damage.
- There is no causal link between its conduct (or failure to act) and the damage.
The emergency event alone does not release the custodian from liability. If the warehouse had fire safety violations, if employees hadn’t received safety training, if fire suppression systems weren’t installed — the court will not recognize force majeure.
The burden of proof lies with the marketplace, not the seller.
Vulnerability 3. No Retroactive Effect (Article 425 of the Civil Code)
The offer agreement is amended, UAV strikes are added as force majeure, and notifications are sent to sellers. But there is a fundamental question: when was your goods accepted at the warehouse?
Article 425 of the Civil Code: an agreement enters into force and becomes binding on the parties from the moment of its conclusion. Changing the terms retroactively — with respect to obligations that arose at the time of shipment — is legally impossible.
If your goods were accepted at the warehouse before the date the new offer terms took effect, the old storage rules apply to those goods, with no “UAV force majeure.”
What This Means in Practice
“Preferential rates” and “logistics discounts” are not compensation. They are the marketplace’s attempt to:
- deflate the wave of lawsuits,
- get sellers to voluntarily accept their losses,
- lock in that acceptance through a button click in the seller panel.
Judicial precedent on warehouse fires is being established right now. Companies that begin systematic claims work first have the strongest prospects for recovering actual compensation.
The Legal Workflow for These Cases
- Check the date of goods arrival at the warehouse against the date of the offer amendment.
- Analyze intake records and primary documents to calculate actual losses.
- Review the marketplace’s compliance with fire safety requirements.
- Form the legal position and send a formal pre-trial claim.
- Represent the client’s interests in Arbitration Court.
Read Also
- 4 Myths About Wildberries Terms and Drone Force Majeure: What Russian Law Actually Says
- Marketplace Terms Are Not Above Russian Law: How to Recover Money for Burned Goods
If your business has suffered real losses and you’re not prepared to write them off in exchange for “commission discounts,” contact us. We will conduct an initial assessment of your documents and determine a strategy for recovering your funds.