Who is responsible if you were sold a defective product on a marketplace: why the platform is not to blame even if you were deceived

Today, buying goods on a marketplace sometimes resembles a game of roulette: you may receive a flagship smartphone, or you may get a piece of plastic or a device that will lock after an hour. At the same time, a well-known marketplace name does not guarantee safe purchases.

The biggest mistake a buyer makes is to assume that marketplaces are responsible for everything sold on their sites. In reality, most large platforms are just digital storefronts that lease space to other sellers.

An important rule that determines responsibility in the case of a defective product purchased on a marketplace is quite simple. The party responsible in a consumer dispute is always the entity indicated on the fiscal receipt or product document as the seller.

As a rule, this is a specific individual entrepreneur (FOP) or legal entity that officially made the sale. This entity bears full responsibility for the quality of the product, warranty obligations, and refund in accordance with the Law of Ukraine "On Consumer Rights Protection."

At the same time, the marketplace in most cases acts only as an informational or intermediary platform and is not a party to the purchase and sale agreement. This means that the platform is formally not responsible for the quality of the product if the seller is a third-party individual entrepreneur or company.

Marketplace obligations

Despite the absence of direct responsibility for the product, the law imposes another important obligation on online platforms — to ensure consumer access to complete information about the seller.

In particular, the consumer has the right to receive:

• the full name of the seller,
• legal address,
• contact details for communication,
• identification data of the business entity.

If the marketplace refuses to provide this information or complicates its receipt, this may be considered a violation of consumer rights. In such cases, when the marketplace does not disclose data about the individual entrepreneur or company, the consumer has the right to file a complaint with the State Service of Ukraine on Food Safety and Consumer Protection.

Such actions may be qualified as violations of consumer protection legislation since without identifying the seller, protecting rights in court is practically impossible.

Dropshippers: the hidden link in the sales chain

Dropshipping is a model where the seller only accepts orders, and the product ships directly from the supplier's warehouse. When defects occur, such "dropshippers" often claim they are merely intermediaries and that all claims should be directed to the manufacturer.

In current Ukrainian legislation, the term "dropshipper" is absent and has no independent legal status. What matters is not the sales model but the actual party to the purchase and sale agreement.

If payment for the product was made to a bank card or account of a specific person, or if that person is indicated as the sender in the shipping documents (invoice, receipt, voucher), that person is considered the seller in the legal sense.

All internal commercial agreements between intermediaries, including arguments like "the warehouse does not accept the product" or "the supplier refused the return," do not affect consumer rights and cannot limit their claims.

The consumer has the right to make claims for refunds, exchanges, or defect elimination exclusively to the business entity to whom payment was made and who is a party to the contract.

Checklist for safe online shopping

Online trade is regulated, among others, by Article 13 of the Law of Ukraine "On Consumer Rights Protection," which obliges the seller to provide the consumer with complete and reliable information before concluding the contract.

To minimize risks, it is worth checking key parameters before placing an order.

Before purchasing, make sure that the product page or seller section indicates:

• the full name of the seller (individual entrepreneur or legal entity);
• legal address and contact details;
• procedure for submitting and reviewing claims;
• main product characteristics;
• full price, including delivery and additional fees;
• payment and delivery terms;
• warranty obligations;
• procedure for contract termination and product return.

The absence of this information is an indicator of increased risk for the consumer.

Since online purchases are based on visual descriptions, be sure to check the product directly at the postal operator's branch.

Algorithm for refunding defective goods

1. If damage is detected upon receipt of the package, you must immediately draw up a damage report in the presence of a delivery service representative. Additionally, it is advisable to document the product's condition with photos and videos.

These materials may later become key evidence in case of a dispute.

2. The fiscal receipt or other payment document is the basic proof of purchase. Without it, proving the fact of purchase is much more difficult.

If the product was sent without a receipt, this may be considered a violation of trade rules and should be separately noted in a written claim.

3. Correspondence in messengers does not have proper legal force. To protect consumer rights, an official written statement must be sent to the seller about terminating the purchase agreement, refund, or product replacement.

This document initiates the formal dispute resolution procedure.

4. In cases involving goods of proper quality, the law provides for the possibility of return within 14 days, provided the product's appearance is preserved.

If a quality check or examination is conducted, it must also be done within a reasonable time — usually up to 14 days.

Missing deadlines or improper return processing may be grounds for refusal of a refund.

When can a court refuse a refund?

Case No. 127/4930/25 about a "blocked" Samsung S24 Ultra demonstrated two important aspects: risks of buying equipment on the secondary market and the need to comply with procedural norms during dispute consideration.

The plaintiff purchased a mobile phone for UAH 35,500 through an online ad on OLX. Later it was found that the device was blocked due to non-payment of installments by the previous owner in Poland, which effectively made its use impossible.

A lawsuit was filed. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of lower courts that had satisfied the claim, focusing not on the fact of purchase but on violations of procedural guarantees during the case review.

Lower courts sent summonses to the seller at the wrong address despite having documents in the case materials about his actual registration place. This resulted in the defendant not being properly notified about the case hearing.

The court emphasized that hearing a case without the participation of a party not properly notified is a significant violation of the right to a fair trial. Such actions contradict Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the principle of equality of parties in judicial proceedings.

Even in disputes over obviously problematic goods, the case outcome may depend not only on the substance of claims but also on whether basic judicial standards were observed.

The court dispute regarding the Midea robot vacuum cleaner in case No. 639/5430/25 is illustrative of conflicts between consumers and service centers about causes of equipment failure.

The buyer demanded a refund for a robot vacuum cleaner that stopped working about a month after purchase. The device was sent for diagnostics to a service center. Specialists found traces of liquid ingress on the control board and concluded that the malfunction resulted from improper use — specifically, pouring liquid on the device from above. On this basis, warranty service and refund claims were denied.

The court denied the claim, recognizing the service center's technical examination report as proper and admissible evidence.

Although in quality disputes the general burden of proof regarding the cause of failure often lies with the seller or warranty repair provider, the consumer has the right to challenge the service center's conclusions by conducting an independent examination.

Case No. 682/347/25: jacket from Instagram. The plaintiff ordered jeans and a jacket totaling UAH 10,300 through an Instagram store. Payment was made in two installments to the seller's card: UAH 3,000 advance and UAH 7,300 balance. The goods were received, but the buyer claimed the jacket did not meet her expectations and order.

The court found that the plaintiff first made a refund claim after missing the 14-day period established by law for returning goods of proper quality. The court noted that the consumer loses the right to claim if they do not meet this deadline.

Additionally, the court clarified that the claim to terminate the purchase agreement is directly related to the actual return of the product to the seller.

Termination of the purchase agreement implies a bilateral return — the buyer returns the product, and the seller returns the money. It is impossible to simultaneously demand compensation and keep the item.

The plaintiff argued that she could not actually return the product because the seller refused to provide a return address and no fiscal receipt was issued.

The court noted that the buyer received the goods through a delivery service and therefore had the opportunity to send it back to the address indicated in the carrier's invoice. The absence of an additional address provided by the seller in messenger was not recognized as a circumstance preventing the return.

Thus, the court emphasized: logistic delivery details are sufficient grounds for organizing a return.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, Facebook page and Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.