The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (SC), using the example of a dispute between the large clothing retailer Melon Fashion Group (brands Sela, Zarina, Befree, Love Republic, Idol) with the Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS), will figure out what is considered voluntary consent of the consumer to receive advertising mailings. The antimonopoly authority considered it coercive and a violation that in order to participate in the promotion of Sela stores, customers were required to agree to receive emails with advertising. The arbitration courts agreed with these arguments. But the company complained to the Supreme Court, saying that exchanging a discount for consent to receive advertising mailings is a normal business practice.
The reason for the dispute between Melon Fashion Group JSC and the FAS was three advertising letters received by a resident of Ufa from the e-mail of the online clothing store Sela in August 2024. The man complained to the antimonopoly authority, and it found out that the consumer had subscribed to the newsletter when he took part in Sela’s “Wheel of Fortune” promotion. To receive a discount, the user provided an e-mail and ticked the checkbox indicating consent to receive promotional emails. Without this mark, it was impossible to participate in the drawing – it was this circumstance that interested the FAS.
Explicitly and unambiguously
In December 2024, the Bashkir department of the FAS recognized the advertising mailing to this consumer as improper due to a violation of Part 1 of Art. 18 of the Law “On Advertising” (requirements for advertising distributed over telecommunication networks). The regulator indicated that the subscriber’s consent must be clear and unambiguous, and his will is aimed specifically at receiving advertising, and not at anything else. In this case, the company actually forced the citizen to “give the go-ahead,” because otherwise he simply would not have been able to receive a discount.
However, according to the FAS, tying consent to participation in the action contradicts the principle of good faith and only creates the appearance of legality of the retailer’s actions. And the ability to unsubscribe from the mailing list later does not cancel the obligation of the advertising distributor to obtain appropriate prior consent, the FAS indicated.
Based on this decision, administrative proceedings were initiated against Melon Fashion Group under Part 4.1 of Art. 14.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, which provides for a fine for legal entities from 300 thousand to 1 million rubles. But based on the results of the consideration of the case in February 2025, the FAS came to the conclusion that it could be limited to issuing a warning to the company, since the violation was committed for the first time and did not cause property damage. Melon Fashion Group challenged the FAS decision in court, believing that there was, in principle, no corpus delicti. But the arbitration courts rejected the claim, confirming the legality of the antimonopoly service’s position. The courts considered that the will of the consumer was aimed solely at receiving a discount, and the consent was given in non-alternative conditions and cannot be considered proper.
The retailer appealed to the Supreme Court, stating that the user independently put the mark and understood that the newsletter would be advertising, because this was expressly stated. Providing a discount in exchange for agreeing to receive advertising is a common business practice, and a citizen could unsubscribe from the mailing list at any time, the company’s complaint states.
In addition, the organization saw signs of abuse of rights on the part of the consumer, who continued to receive advertising messages and did not unsubscribe, thereby artificially creating a multiplicity of violations on the retailer’s side. Based on these arguments, the case was transferred to the Economic College of the Supreme Court, the meeting was scheduled for June 17.
The FAS press service clarified to Kommersant that consent to receive advertising “must be separate from other documents and drawn up in such a way that the user consciously confirms it.” If a company sends out different types of messages, both informational and promotional, the user should be able to choose which ones to receive, it added. “All court decisions are presented in the public domain. As for the rest, we do not comment on the situation,” Melon Fashion Group told Kommersant.
1.569 trillion rubles
amounted to the volume of the Russian online advertising market in 2025, according to the Association for the Development of Interactive Advertising.
Advertising side effect
The position of the FAS and the courts in disputes about the imposition of advertising mailings is based on the fact that the subscriber’s consent must be preliminary and free, explains Forward Legal lawyer Alena Panteley. The Supreme Court will have to resolve the important issue, primarily for online retailers, of when a consumer’s consent to receive advertising mailings is free and when it is forced, notes Kulik & Partners Law.Economics lawyer Asiya Chiglintseva.
Lawyers themselves have different opinions about what kind of consent is considered appropriate. According to Ms. Panteley, if participation in a marketing campaign is possible only if you subscribe to advertising, then the consumer has no choice, and such consent becomes only formal. The FAS’s strong argument is that consent to marketing communications should not be a “side effect” of participation in the action, adds Anastasia Myrsina, senior lawyer at VERBA Legal. She cites as an example a similar practice for the brands Baon and O’stin, where the courts also sided with the FAS. At the same time, Ms. Myrsina clarifies, the possibility of subsequent unsubscription in itself “does not cure the defect of the initial forced expression of will.”
However, Orchards lawyer Maxim Mironov believes that this position does not take into account the key circumstance – that the consumer voluntarily agrees to the rules of the promotion, in fact exchanging his consent to the newsletter for a discount or bonus. A ban on such promotions will deprive online retail of a significant tool for promoting products, notes Ms. Chiglintseva. In the absence of a strict relationship between purchase and subscription, the retailer’s arguments deserve attention, admits Oksana Kromskaya, head of the antimonopoly practice of MCA Aronov and Partners.
The company’s argument about abuse of rights by the consumer, according to lawyers, is rather of an auxiliary nature. As Natalia Strelkova, senior consultant at the law firm Kamenskaya & Partners, notes, in a direct dispute between the FAS and the retailer, this argument is unlikely to be decisive. Moreover, the very fact of multiple requests from a dissatisfied client does not mean abuse – for this it is necessary to prove the artificial provocation of violations or the citizen’s obviously dishonest goal, points out Alena Panteley.
The clarifications of the Supreme Court will be relevant for all similar disputes, since the basic requirements for mailings have not changed since 2024. However, on September 1, 2025, amendments to the law on personal data came into force, which prohibit combining consent to data processing and advertising mailings into one checkbox. To minimize the risk of receiving claims, lawyers advise businesses to implement two separate fields for checking individual boxes.
