A new pattern is gaining traction in Russia: mass complaints about marketing mailings. The mechanics are simple. Someone signs up for a loyalty programme, ticks the consent box, and a month later files a complaint with FAS and a lawsuit in court. Compensation per company runs up to 50,000 rubles. Run at scale — dozens of identical cases per year — it becomes a steady income stream.
Here is why courts side with these claimants and what makes consent genuinely airtight.
Why formal consent does not hold up
FAS and courts evaluate marketing consent against three criteria.
Hidden consent. If the marketing opt-in is embedded in the privacy policy or terms of service rather than presented as a separate, visible checkbox, it is invalid. Consent must be explicit and stand on its own.
No meaningful choice. Users must be able to consent to personal data processing while declining marketing communications. A single checkbox that covers both is not free, informed consent.
Weak evidence. A database log showing “checkbox was ticked” is increasingly met with scepticism in court. Without independent confirmation that the user consciously performed the action, it becomes one party’s word against the other.
How FAS complaints differ from ordinary consumer claims
A FAS complaint under the Advertising Law and a consumer protection lawsuit are different instruments with different logic.
A FAS complaint does not require proof of actual harm — the fact of sending a mailing without proper consent is enough. The agency issues a formal order, and non-compliance with that order triggers the fine.
The parallel civil lawsuit seeks direct compensation. That is where the 50,000-ruble figure appears: it combines moral damages and a statutory penalty under the Consumer Protection Law.
How Double Opt-In protects you from serial litigants
The only reliable protection is Double Opt-In.
The mechanics: the user ticks the checkbox → receives a confirmation email or SMS with a code → activates the subscription by responding. You end up with two independently recorded actions, not one: the form click and a separate, channel-verified confirmation.
This is not just a technical fix — it shifts the evidentiary position entirely. A log showing “checkbox ticked” can be challenged. A verified two-step confirmation chain almost cannot.
If a serial litigant has already filed a claim
When the claimant filing against you has dozens of identical cases against other companies, your strategy in court is to establish abuse of right under Article 10 of the Civil Code.
Courts look at serial litigants differently when you present the full picture: the list of cases, the templated nature of the complaints, the absence of any real harm suffered. If the claimant is not seeking to restore a violated right but is systematically extracting profit from a protection mechanism, that is abuse — and courts have grounds to deny the claim.
Consent checklist for marketing mailings
- Is the marketing consent checkbox separate from the personal data consent checkbox?
- Can users agree to data processing while declining mailings?
- Is every subscription confirmed through an independent channel?
- Are the date, time, and IP address logged with each consent action?
Marketing communications are a legal process. They need documentation as rigorous as any contract.
Read Also
- Professional Consumers: When Buyer Protection Becomes a Business
- FAS Banned Advertising on Telegram: What to Do in 2026
Need an audit of your consent forms, or help defending a claim from a serial litigant? Get in touch.