Why a “Logistics Discount” Is Not Compensation
After warehouse fires, marketplaces follow a predictable script: they offer affected sellers reduced shipping rates or token payments that bear no relation to actual losses. This is not generosity — it is an attempt to close claims before litigation at minimal cost.
A seller’s legal defence is built on four instruments.
Tool 1. The Temporal Cutoff Under Article 425 of the Civil Code
The problem: the marketplace cites its current terms of service, which limit or exclude liability.
The solution: Article 425 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation establishes that a contract enters into force and becomes binding from the moment it is concluded. A new version of the marketplace’s terms has no retroactive effect — it applies only to deliveries made after it came into force.
In practice: if goods were transferred to the warehouse before the terms were changed, the version in force at the time of transfer applies. This is the key argument in court: every delivery must be dated and matched to the version of the terms operative at the time of acceptance.
What to do now: reconstruct the timeline of your deliveries. Download and preserve all versions of the terms of service with their effective dates — marketplaces change them frequently and without notice.
Tool 2. Challenging Abusive Terms Under Article 428 of the Civil Code
The problem: the marketplace’s terms are a contract of adhesion. A seller cannot negotiate — they either accept the terms wholesale or do not operate on the platform.
The solution: Article 428 of the Civil Code protects the weaker party in an adhesion contract. Where the terms are clearly burdensome for the seller and materially upset the balance of interests, a court may:
- modify the contract,
- release the party from the onerous conditions,
- award damages in full.
Key vulnerabilities in marketplace terms:
- liability caps set at amounts unrelated to actual loss,
- unilateral right to change terms without notice,
- placing on sellers risks they objectively cannot control (warehouse fire safety).
Tool 3. Documenting the Actual Loss
Courts award what is proven. Actual loss must be documented accurately and promptly.
Documents you will need:
- delivery notes and goods-acceptance acts,
- marketplace reports on inventory at the time of the fire,
- purchasing documents (invoices, supplier contracts),
- an independent valuation of the market value of lost goods,
- all correspondence with the marketplace after the fire.
A common mistake: sellers take the marketplace’s figures for the quantity and value of goods as the only source of truth. Cross-check against your own warehouse records — discrepancies in the platform’s favour are not uncommon.
Tool 4. Joining Forces for a Precedent
An individual claim for 300,000 roubles is something a marketplace will accept losing — the legal costs are lower than the precedent. The situation changes when dozens or hundreds of sellers unite, with aggregate claims running into hundreds of millions of roubles.
Mechanisms for collective action:
- parallel claims in different courts with a coordinated legal position,
- filing in one court — creates a ruling that all subsequent cases can cite,
- notifying the Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS) and Rospotrebnadzor of the systemic violation.
The first court ruling fully satisfying a seller’s claims becomes the precedent all subsequent cases reference.
Limitation Period
The limitation period for damage claims is 3 years from the date on which the breach of rights became known. That said, waiting is inadvisable: evidence deteriorates over time, and the marketplace may restructure its legal entities.
Read Also
- Behind the Scenes: How a Lawyer Builds a Defence Strategy for Marketplace Sellers After a Fire
- Warehouse Fire at a Marketplace: Sellers’ Rights and 4 Myths That Block Compensation
Were your goods damaged or destroyed in a marketplace warehouse fire? Contact us for a consultation — we will assess the prospects for a claim, help gather documents, and build your strategy.