Model answers
European Consumer Law in a Digital Society exam, 29 March 2019
1.A. Amazon Dash Button
Amazon Dash Button does infringe the EU consumer laws; in fact the question is based on an actual
case decided by the German court in the beginning of this year. In particular, the manner of
operation the device is in breach of the Consumer Rights Directive as it does not conform to the
informational and formal duties imposed by the traders in Article 8 of the CRD (and possibly also
Article 6 CRD).
The design of the device is problematic in the sense that it does not feature any display or screen so
that the consumer is not able to receive any information while making the purchase. While it is not
clear from the description of the case to what extent the consumers were informed of their rights via
the app connected to the Dash Button, which could be possibly consulted as an underlying
information fulfilling the duties referred to in Article 6 CRD, the Dash Button blatantly infringes the
provisions of Article 8.2 CRD, which applies in case of distance contracts concluded by electronic
means and imposing an obligation to pay (for which orders made via Dash Button would qualify).
More specifically, Article 8.2 sets forth a set of rules that must be taken into account in any case
when designing the electronic device with a feature allowing for purchases (something to be taken
into account also in case of digital assistants like Amazon Echo). For example, pursuant to Article 8.2
first sentence, where the distance contract concluded by electronic means obliges the consumer to
pay, information referred to in Art. 6 a, e, o and p CRD needs to be provided directly before the order
is placed. Here it would in practice mean that the Dash Button would need to have a monitor that
provides for such function as the provision underlines the directness of the information that needs to
precede the order. Further, the Dash Button is problematic pursuant to Art. 8.2 second sentence,
where it is explained that when placing the order the consumer needs to explicitly acknowledge the
payment to follow. In Art. 8.2 third sentence is it indicated that traders need to implement a specific
design feature where consumers can click or press the button saying ‘buy with obligation to pay’ or
something similar. In practice the Button would need to be labelled with a sign ‘I agree to pay’ or
something unambiguous in similar vein (which was not the case as demonstrated by the photo
attached). Otherwise, the consumer is not bound by the contract. Finally, Art. 8.3 CRD requires the
trader to indicate clearly, at least at the beginning of the ordering process, what delivery and
payment conditions are applied. Again, not possible to implement in practice without a monitor
attached to the Button.
In Art. 8.4 the legislator takes into account some difficulties that might be encountered by the traders
using technology design that allows for only limited time or space for displaying information by listing
the minimum requirements but the Dash Button does not meet those.
Apart from the clear breach of the provisions of the CRD, one might also question whether the Unfair
Commercial Practices Directive could apply to the practice of equipping the consumer with Dash
Buttons. In particular, the shopping experience via Dash Button could be interpreted in the light of
European Consumer Law in a Digital Society exam, 29 March 2019
1.A. Amazon Dash Button
Amazon Dash Button does infringe the EU consumer laws; in fact the question is based on an actual
case decided by the German court in the beginning of this year. In particular, the manner of
operation the device is in breach of the Consumer Rights Directive as it does not conform to the
informational and formal duties imposed by the traders in Article 8 of the CRD (and possibly also
Article 6 CRD).
The design of the device is problematic in the sense that it does not feature any display or screen so
that the consumer is not able to receive any information while making the purchase. While it is not
clear from the description of the case to what extent the consumers were informed of their rights via
the app connected to the Dash Button, which could be possibly consulted as an underlying
information fulfilling the duties referred to in Article 6 CRD, the Dash Button blatantly infringes the
provisions of Article 8.2 CRD, which applies in case of distance contracts concluded by electronic
means and imposing an obligation to pay (for which orders made via Dash Button would qualify).
More specifically, Article 8.2 sets forth a set of rules that must be taken into account in any case
when designing the electronic device with a feature allowing for purchases (something to be taken
into account also in case of digital assistants like Amazon Echo). For example, pursuant to Article 8.2
first sentence, where the distance contract concluded by electronic means obliges the consumer to
pay, information referred to in Art. 6 a, e, o and p CRD needs to be provided directly before the order
is placed. Here it would in practice mean that the Dash Button would need to have a monitor that
provides for such function as the provision underlines the directness of the information that needs to
precede the order. Further, the Dash Button is problematic pursuant to Art. 8.2 second sentence,
where it is explained that when placing the order the consumer needs to explicitly acknowledge the
payment to follow. In Art. 8.2 third sentence is it indicated that traders need to implement a specific
design feature where consumers can click or press the button saying ‘buy with obligation to pay’ or
something similar. In practice the Button would need to be labelled with a sign ‘I agree to pay’ or
something unambiguous in similar vein (which was not the case as demonstrated by the photo
attached). Otherwise, the consumer is not bound by the contract. Finally, Art. 8.3 CRD requires the
trader to indicate clearly, at least at the beginning of the ordering process, what delivery and
payment conditions are applied. Again, not possible to implement in practice without a monitor
attached to the Button.
In Art. 8.4 the legislator takes into account some difficulties that might be encountered by the traders
using technology design that allows for only limited time or space for displaying information by listing
the minimum requirements but the Dash Button does not meet those.
Apart from the clear breach of the provisions of the CRD, one might also question whether the Unfair
Commercial Practices Directive could apply to the practice of equipping the consumer with Dash
Buttons. In particular, the shopping experience via Dash Button could be interpreted in the light of
