Marketplaces in Russia: Antitrust Regulation, Legal Disputes, and Protection Strategies

 

August 29, 2025

BRACE Law Firm ©

 

The volume of online sales grows year after year. According to Kommersant, Russian consumers spent almost a quarter more on online orders in 2024 than in the previous year. [1] A significant share of internet transactions occurred on marketplaces.

A marketplace is understood as an online platform that acts as an intermediary between sellers and buyers. At the same time, unlike a standard online store, a marketplace does not sell its own goods but provides infrastructure: a catalog, search, shopping cart, payment instruments, and a system of reviews and ratings. Examples of major marketplaces include Yandex Market, Ozon, and Wildberries.

However, as reported by the Federal Antimonopoly Service, [2] the agency receives a large number of complaints about marketplaces from both citizens and businesses. Issues mainly concern the lack of transparency in platform operations, forced participation in promotions, unilateral changes to contractual terms, commissions, and problems with the acceptance, delivery, and return of goods.

In this article, we examine the primary violations of antitrust legislation committed by marketplaces and how to combat them.

What is a Marketplace?

The widely used term marketplace that has entered common usage is not used in Russian legislation. Furthermore, legal regulation of their activities was virtually absent for a long time. Only in 2023 were amendments adopted [3] to Federal Law No. 135-FZ dated July 26, 2006, On Protection of Competition (the "Law on Protection of Competition" or "135-FZ"), known as the "Fifth Antitrust Package". This package provided legal definitions for new institutions, including the "digital platform".

Pursuant to Clause 4.1 of Article 4 of the Law on Protection of Competition, a digital platform is understood as a program (a set of programs) for electronic computing machines in information and telecommunications networks, including the Internet, that ensures the performance of transactions between sellers and buyers of certain goods.

Thus, marketplaces are considered digital platforms within the meaning of Russian legislation.

Antitrust Prohibitions for Digital Platform Owners

The Fifth Antitrust Package introduced a special provision, Article 10.1, into the Law on Protection of Competition, which establishes a prohibition on the performance of monopolistic activity by an economic entity owning a digital platform.

In accordance with the specified provision, an economic entity owning a digital platform is prohibited from actions (omissions) that result or may result in the prevention, restriction, or elimination of competition and (or) the infringement of the interests of other persons (economic entities) in the sphere of entrepreneurial activity or an indefinite circle of consumers, including the following actions (omissions):

• establishing or maintaining a monopolistically high or monopolistically low price for a product;
• withdrawing a product from circulation if such withdrawal resulted in an increase in the product price;
• imposing contract terms on a counterparty that are unfavorable for it or unrelated to the subject of the contract;
• economically or technologically unjustified reduction or termination of product production if there is a demand for such product or orders for its supply have been placed, and if profitable production of the product is possible, and if such reduction or termination of product production is not directly provided for by applicable law or judicial acts;
• economically or technologically unjustified refusal or evasion of concluding a contract with individual buyers (customers);
• economically, technologically, or otherwise unjustified establishment of different prices (tariffs) for the same product, unless otherwise established by federal law;
• creating discriminatory conditions;
• establishing an unreasonably high or unreasonably low price for a financial service;
• creating obstacles for other economic entities to enter or exit a commodity market;
• violating the price-setting procedure established by regulatory legal acts.

At the same time, an economic entity is not deprived of the opportunity to present evidence of the admissibility of its actions in accordance with Article 13 of Federal Law No. 135-FZ.

To recognize an abuse of a dominant position in the actions of a digital platform owner, it will be necessary to prove the combination of the following conditions:

• the existence of a network effect that makes it possible to exert a decisive influence on the conditions of product circulation on a commodity market or to impede access to/remove other economic entities from the market. Under the "network effect" is understood a property of a commodity market in which the consumer value of a digital platform changes depending on the change in the number of sellers and buyers performing transactions through the digital platform.
• the share of transactions performed between sellers and buyers through the digital platform exceeds 35% of the total volume of transactions performed on the relevant commodity market in value terms.
• the revenue for the last calendar year exceeds 2 billion rubles.

Researchers of this problem correctly note [4] that the criterion determined by the presence of a network effect remains vague and difficult to measure quantitatively. The development of clear methodologies is necessary to determine the influence of a digital platform on product circulation conditions. Furthermore, the analysis of this effect may be difficult due to a lack of transparency in operations on platforms.

It should be noted that law enforcement practice under this article is only beginning to form. Prior to the introduction of the special provision, antimonopoly authorities qualified the actions of a digital platform owner under Article 10 of the Law on Protection of Competition, that is, as a violation of the general prohibition.

In 2024, FAS Russia identified signs of imposing unfavorable contract terms on counterparties in the actions of two marketplaces:

• regarding Ozon, the fact of imposing a bonus program on sellers was established, as well as an unjustified refusal to conclude contracts with sellers without explanation and uncertainty in the terms of contract termination;[5]
• regarding Wildberries — the establishment in the offer of the possibility to change tariffs for logistics services and storage services after the acceptance of the product, various measures of liability for the performance of the same actions by them, and the disproportion of penalties to the violations. [6]

It should be noted that the procedure for establishing a dominant position by a digital platform was not provided in the issued warnings to eliminate violations. At the same time, as researchers of this problem emphasize, [7] within the framework of applying antimonopoly response measures for a violation of legislation by digital platforms, the antimonopoly authority is obliged to prove both the behavior of the economic entity and the existence of the combination of special dominance criteria. Otherwise, economic entities may challenge such measures.

Marketplaces are also subject to other antitrust prohibitions established by the Law on Protection of Competition, such as:

• the prohibition on agreements restricting competition;
• the prohibition on concerted actions restricting competition;
• the prohibition on unfair competition, and others.

Below, we consider methods for protecting the rights of sellers in the event that unlawful actions by a marketplace are identified.

Administrative Procedure for Protecting Rights in Disputes with Marketplaces

If it is necessary to stop the illegal actions of marketplaces, an appeal to the antimonopoly authority may be an effective method of protection.

From March 28, 2024, the moratorium on unscheduled antimonopoly inspections of IT companies, including regarding digital platforms, was canceled. According to Clause 2.2 of Decree of the Government of Russia No. 448 dated March 24, 2022, On the Particulars of Exercising State Control (Supervision) and Municipal Control in Respect of Accredited Organizations Performing Activities in the Field of Information Technology, unscheduled inspections are conducted, including in the presence of signs of the following violations of antitrust legislation:

• the performance of monopolistic activity by an economic entity owning a digital platform;
• the conclusion of agreements restricting competition by economic entities.

One of the grounds for conducting such an inspection is statements from individuals and legal entities indicating signs of a violation of antitrust legislation. The procedure for conducting control measures by the antimonopoly authority is regulated in Articles 25.2 – 25.4.1 of the Law on Protection of Competition. More detailed information about the procedure for conducting an unscheduled inspection can be read in our special article on this topic. [8]

Based on the results of the inspection, an inspection report is prepared, which is delivered or sent by registered mail with notification to the inspected person or its representative no later than the last day of the inspection period. If signs of abuse of a dominant position are present, the antimonopoly authority issues a warning before initiating a case (Part 2 of Article 39.1 of 135-FZ). The warning is subject to mandatory consideration by the person to whom it was issued within the specified period. The antimonopoly authority must be notified of the fulfillment of the warning. In the event of non-fulfillment of the warning within the established period, the antimonopoly authority makes a decision to initiate a case on the violation of antitrust legislation within 10 business days from the date of expiration of the period.

Article 25.7 of the Law on Protection of Competition also provides the antimonopoly authority with the right to issue a "caution" — a document that cautions against actions (omissions), the performance of which may lead to a violation of antitrust legislation.

Thus, in 2025, Wildberries posted a document on its platform and indicated that from June 30, 2025, the registration of new sellers, as well as the continuation of work for entrepreneurs who previously joined the marketplace, would be impossible without opening an account in Wildberries Bank. If the required operation is not performed, access to their personal accounts will be restricted. FAS Russia considered that this contained signs of a violation of the Law on Protection of Competition and issued a caution. [9]

The Law on Protection of Competition does not provide for an obligation to notify the antimonopoly authority of the performance of any actions related to the receipt of such a caution. At the same time, if the person to whom the caution was sent still performs actions (omissions) in the future against the inadmissibility of which it was cautioned, the antimonopoly authority may initiate a case on the violation of antitrust legislation.

It should be noted that at the current moment, the mechanism of warnings and cautions is actively applied by FAS Russia and has high effectiveness.

Judicial Protection of Rights in Disputes with a Marketplace

Marketplaces often unilaterally and unjustifiably withhold penalties, reduce prices for goods without coordination with the seller, or establish discounts, which entails monetary losses for sellers. To recover them, it will be necessary to appeal to a court. We will illustrate the main reasons for filing claims against marketplaces using examples from judicial practice.

1. The marketplace established a discount on a product without coordination with the seller.

In Case No. A41-63573/2020, [10] an individual entrepreneur appealed to a court against a marketplace with a claim for the recovery of the difference between the value of the product coordinated by the parties and the sale value on the marketplace in the amount of 39,546,524 rubles. In support of the stated claims, it indicated that for 2 years, the product was sold at the value coordinated by the parties, and in the third year, the product began to be sold with discounts up to 90%. Such discounts were not coordinated by the seller, which caused significant damage to the plaintiff.

During the consideration of the cases, the court established that the plaintiff provided a discount on the product (a "promo code") in the amount of 10%, and the defendant provided no evidence of the establishment of other discounts. Furthermore, the marketplace, by not timely considering the plaintiff's objections, did not take measures to reduce the damage. The claim was satisfied in full.

In another Case No. A41-61109/2022, [11] an individual entrepreneur demanded to recover losses in the amount of 538,003 rubles from a marketplace, which arose due to the incorrect display of the value of the product on the platform. During the court hearing, it was established that the plaintiff performed an "upload" of a new price and, 10 minutes later, an "upload" of a discount. However, only the establishment of the discount occurred on the marketplace website, as a result of which the final price of the product became significantly lower than its cost. At the same time, the plaintiff could not provide the court with sufficient evidence confirming the sale of goods at a reduced price and the amount of losses. Satisfaction of the claim was denied.

2. The marketplace unilaterally withheld penalties for violating the rules of the platform.

In Case No. A41-83974/2023, [12] an individual entrepreneur appealed to a court against a marketplace with a claim for recognition of the accrual of penalties in the amount of 3,275,000 rubles as illegal, the recovery of unjustifiably withheld 159,380 rubles, and interest for the use of others' monetary funds in the amount of 6,934 rubles. In support of the stated claims, the plaintiff indicated that during the period of work on the marketplace, it supplied a product (a "nicotine-containing" product); however, the defendant unilaterally and without notification changed the "Prohibited for Supply" section on the website. Subsequently, the defendant blocked the plaintiff's product cards, indicating the sale of prohibited goods as the reason for the blocking.

The plaintiff appealed to the support service of the marketplace, indicating that the product arrived at the warehouse of the marketplace before the terms were changed. However, the defendant accrued a penalty to the plaintiff for violating the rules of the platform. Lower courts decided that the sale of nicotine-containing products by a remote method contradicts not only the offer but also applicable law. The withholding of penalties was recognized as justified. However, the court of a higher instance indicated that the marketplace is obliged to notify sellers of changes to the terms of the contract and to prove the lawfulness of the accrual of penalties. The claim was satisfied in full.

It should be noted that in another Case No. A41-109819/2023 [13] with similar circumstances, the court indicated that the legislative prohibition of distance trade in nicotine-containing products was established several years before the offer was changed by the marketplace; therefore, the accrual of penalties was recognized as justified.

Often, the reason for withholding a penalty is the artificial increase by the seller of its rating and the rating of the product. Such actions are usually prohibited by the rules of the "platform", and courts recognize the withholding of penalties for such actions as lawful. However, the fact of deception by the seller must be proven by the marketplace.

Thus, in Case No. A41-102114/2023, [14] a marketplace withheld a penalty from an individual entrepreneur in the amount of 614,400 rubles because the seller tried to raise its rating. The entrepreneur appealed to a court with a claim for the recovery of the unjustifiably withheld amount of the penalty and interest for the use of others' monetary funds. The defendant referred to the fact that four users purchased the plaintiff's goods with one card and ordered them to one pickup point. However, the court came to the conclusion that this may indicate a family purchase. In addition, the defendant could not provide a calculation of the penalty. The claim was satisfied in full.

In Case No. A41-85738/2023, [15] the court considered the fact of rating "boosting" to be proven, since it was established that up to 10 accounts were linked to the same bank card, which is excluded if the consumer intends to buy goods on the website for its own use.

3. Problems with the return of goods and the transfer of money for goods.

Marketplace rules may provide for a clause that the product may be disposed of by a unilateral decision of the marketplace in a number of cases. However, the platform does not always comply with its own rules.

Thus, in Case No. A40-220760/2023, [16] an individual entrepreneur appealed to a court with a claim against a marketplace for the recovery of losses in the amount of 954,017 rubles and the cost of services for product disposal in the amount of 57,741 rubles. In support of the claims, it indicated that it demanded that the marketplace return the product back. Contradictory answers were received to these appeals: first, that the plaintiff's goods were lost and were being searched for; then, that the goods were disposed of; then, that the appeal was in processing. Subsequently, the seller learned that the product had been disposed of. The seller appealed to a court. The court came to a conclusion about the absence of legal grounds for the marketplace to dispose of the product, noting the inconsistent behavior of the defendant. The claim was satisfied in full.

Cases occur when a marketplace does not transfer money to a seller for a realized product.

Thus, in Case No. A40-205205/20-28-1445, [17] a contract was concluded between an individual entrepreneur and a marketplace, according to which the marketplace undertook to provide services for the promotion of the entrepreneur's product and to accept payments for the sold product. The entrepreneur transferred the product for realization for a total amount of 234,799 rubles, but the monetary funds from its realization were not transferred to the seller, which served as the occasion for filing a claim in court. Since the marketplace did not prove the possibility of a unilateral change to the terms of the contract, the claim was satisfied in full.

4. Counterfeit goods are sold on the marketplace.

In Case No. A40-43062/2023,[18] a business entity appealed to a court with a claim against a marketplace and an individual entrepreneur for the recovery of 2,300,000 rubles in compensation on a joint and several basis for the violation of the exclusive right to the packaging design of the board game "Mafia". It was established by the court that the plaintiff is the holder of an exclusive license to use the design of the board game box. At the same time, it became known to the plaintiff that an individual entrepreneur was selling the product on the marketplace without the permission of the right holder.

The court recognized a violation of the plaintiff's exclusive rights in the actions of the individual entrepreneur and recovered compensation in the amount of 310,000 rubles. Regarding the marketplace, it indicated that it is an information intermediary which, by virtue of Clause 3 of Article 1253.1 of the Civil Code, is subject to liability only if it knew or should have known about the unlawfulness of such actions. Furthermore, the marketplace took sufficient measures to stop the violation of the plaintiff's exclusive rights, which was expressed in blocking the card of the disputed product before the claim was accepted for proceedings. It denied the claims against the marketplace. Similar conclusions are contained in other court decisions with analogous circumstances, [19] so it is possible to speak of an established judicial practice on this issue.

However, if a marketplace does not react timely to a claim from a right holder and does not stop the unlawful use of someone else's trademark, then it may be held liable.

Thus, in Case No. 88-8992/2022, [20] the court established that for more than half a year from the moment of receiving the claim, the marketplace did not take measures to delete information about the product violating the plaintiff's exclusive rights. Compensation in the amount of 10,000 rubles was recovered from the marketplace and the individual entrepreneur on a joint and several basis.

Undoubtedly, judicial proceedings with a marketplace will entail temporal and financial costs. However, if the factual circumstances of the case are correctly assessed, and evidence is intelligently collected and presented, winning a case in court is not an impossible task.

Self-Regulation of Marketplaces as Digital Platforms

In order to prevent anti-competitive behavior on the market, the self-regulation of the industry is of considerable importance. Thus, at the end of 2021, FAS Russia, together with information technology market participants, developed and approved the Principles for Interaction Between Digital Market Participants (the "Principles of Interaction"). Twelve major Russian platforms joined them, including marketplaces such as AliExpress Russia, Wildberries, Lamoda, Ozon, and others.

According to the specified Principles of Interaction, digital market participants must strive to ensure:

• the establishment of understandable and transparent rules of work in open access;
• the establishment of a uniform procedure for considering user appeals within reasonable periods;
• the ensuring of non-discriminatory treatment of services;
• the establishment in the rules of use of formulations that do not allow for excessively broad interpretation or unlimited discretion, which may lead to unjustified blocking, restriction of users, or termination of the contract.

In the opinion of FAS Russia, such self-regulation has already made it possible in a number of cases to achieve the correction of some negative practices, such as penalties for the refusal of sellers to participate in marketplace promotions or mandatory sales abroad. [21]

New Changes in the Legal Regulation of Marketplaces

On July 31, 2025, the President of Russia signed Federal Law No. 289-FZ On Certain Issues of Regulating the Platform Economy in the Russian Federation (the "Law on Platform Economy"). New requirements will affect digital platforms and their users. We will briefly mention the main innovations:

• a new conceptual framework is introduced: "digital platform partner", "digital platform user", "order acceptance and delivery point", "product card", "product rating", etc.;
• the basic rights and obligations of online market participants are regulated;
• requirements for the design of product cards are established, including information on permissions, licenses, certificates, or other documents;
• the procedure for reducing the price of a product by a marketplace at the partner's expense is determined;
• the procedure for unilateral changes to contract terms by a marketplace is regulated. In particular, the marketplace must notify the partner 45 days in advance of changes establishing new liability measures, an increase in commission, a change in the procedure for calculating the platform's remuneration, or changed rules for acceptance, storage, delivery, delivery, dispatch, or return of goods;
• the procedure for pre-trial settlement between marketplaces, partners, and owners of an order delivery point is determined;
• state control over compliance with the specified requirements is introduced.

The law will enter into force on October 1, 2026. It should become even more organizing for the relations between marketplaces and other market participants, as well as reduce the number of disputes and complaints between market participants.

Summing up, we note that marketplaces have become one of the methods for many businessmen to realize their product. However, the growth in trade volumes also entails a growth in disputes. The largest number of them are related to the procedure for changing an offer, the change in the price of a product not coordinated with the seller, and the unjustified withholding of penalties. At the same time, marketplaces often abuse their position and are reluctant to resolve problems in a pre-trial procedure.

To minimize the risks of judicial proceedings, sellers need to carefully study the terms of contract-offers and regularly track their changes.

As for judicial practice, in view of the relative novelty of these legal relations, judicial practice does not yet differ in uniformity. In many ways, the outcome of a case depends on a qualitatively collected evidentiary base and an intelligent legal position.

The fact that the rules of work with marketplaces continue to be improved both by improving legislative regulation and by self-regulation should be assessed positively. This makes it possible to hope for the achievement of a balance of interests of all participants in the internet commerce market.

________________________________

References

1. See: https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/7432787
2. FAS Russia Website: https://fas.gov.ru/news/32002
3. Federal Law No. 301-FZ dated July 10, 2023, On Amending the Federal Law On Protection of Competition.
4. S. Kombarova. Legal Regulation of Digital Platforms // IP. Copyright and Related Rights, 2025, No. 3.
5. Warning No. MSh/35681/24 dated April 24, 2024. // https://br.fas.gov.ru/ca/upravlenie-regulirovaniya-svyazi-i-informatsionnyh-tehnologiy/ca7b2ba4-9c7a-4719-a9ed-f9f1f8322b10/.
6. Warning No. MSh/29998/24 dated April 9, 2024 // https://br.fas.gov.ru/ca/upravlenie-regulirovaniya-svyazi-i-informatsionnyh-tehnologiy/3b545e6c-8f90-47c3-9cbd-eac570c754c7/.
7. Karapetyan A.A. Legal Regulation of Digital Platform Activities and Antimonopoly Control: Application Practice // Russian Competition Law and Economics, 2024, No. 2.
8. BRACE Law Firm Website: https://brace-lf.com/informaciya/konkurentnoe/antimonopolnyj-kontrol-za-it-kompaniyami
9. FAS Russia Website: https://fas.gov.ru/news/34061.
10. Decree of the Arbitration Court of the Moscow District dated December 22, 2021, No. F05-32224/2021 in Case No. A41-63573/2020.
11. Decree of the Tenth Arbitration Appellate Court dated December 28, 2022, No. 10AP-23552/22 in Case No. A41-61109/2022.
12. Decree of the Arbitration Court of the Moscow District dated June 5, 2024, No. F05-9591/2024 in Case No. A41-83974/2023.
13. Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated November 13, 2024, No. 305-ES24-19928; transfer of Case No. A41-109819/2023 was denied.
14. Decision of the Arbitration Court of the Moscow Region dated April 27, 2024, in Case No. A41-102114/2023.
15. Decree of the Arbitration Court of the Moscow District dated June 24, 2024, No. F05-8850/2024 in Case No. A41-85738/2023.
16. Decision of the Arbitration Court of Moscow dated March 26, 2024, in Case No. A40-220760/2023-104-1607.
17. Decree of the Ninth Arbitration Appellate Court dated April 30, 2021, No. 09AP-5668/2021 in Case No. A40-205205/20-28-1445.
18. Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated November 6, 2024, No. 305-ES24-18814 in Case No. A40-43062/2023.
19. Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated July 14, 2023, No. 305-ES23-11149 in Case No. A41-6042/2022, Decree of the Ninth Arbitration Appellate Court dated November 12, 2019, No. 09AP-64351/2019-GK in Case No. A40-291745/2018.
20. Ruling of the First Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction dated April 27, 2022, No. 88-8992/2022.
21. FAS Russia Website: https://fas.gov.ru/news/33310.