Update – 2:45 PM : added response from Back Market
—
Back Market is in the eye of the storm. UFC-Que Choisir announces that it is filing a complaint before the Paris Court of Justice against the French unicorn for the reconditioning of electrical and electronic devices for misleading commercial practices.
The association denounces unfair pricing practices and criticizes the first French site for the sale of refurbished electronic products for letting pass “many violations of the right to consumption”, under the guise of circular economy and prices presented as very attractive.
In its argument, UFC-Que Choisir first attacks the “very good deals” of the reconditioner. Behind the promotions that are displayed as such on the site for the sale of refurbished products, the association maintains that Back Market “in reality compares two different products: a new product, which is not sold on the site, and a refurbished product “.
Hidden costs in the viewfinder
UFC-Que Choisir denounces the reconditioner’s unfair pricing policy, explaining that Back Market “omits to include in the presentation of the products the ‘service fees’ that it systematically charges consumers”. The complainant notes that these costs can go “up to 5.99 euros, depending on the amount of the order, and only appear at the payment stage”.
In addition, UFC-Que Choisir attacks Back Market on its commercial guarantee which it describes as “exaggerated”. According to the association, “Back Market offers consumers a 12-month contractual guarantee, suggesting a considerable advantage offered by the company”. However, notes the association, “this guarantee is imposed by law, but above all lasts 24 months, including for reconditioned products”.
Finally, in its complaint, the association says that the refurbisher does not respect the regulations on cookies, and deposits tracking cookies despite the refusal of the Internet users concerned.
The consumer association had been in dialogue for a few months with the essential player in refurbished goods in France before finally going to court. Alain Bazot, the president of UFC-Que Choisir, hopes that this complaint leads to real changes to ensure that “the refurbished unicorn continues to put glitter in the lives of consumers without its communication being only powder in the eyes “.
Back Market responds
Faced with the accusations, Back Market nevertheless wanted to follow up on the complaint from UFC-Que Choisir. In a press release, the company assures that since 2014 it has been striving “to bring transparency and raise quality standards in the refurbished sector, while educating consumers on the scourge of electrical and electronic waste.
Admitting that “everything is not perfect and that there are always areas for improvement”, Back Market returns to each of the points raised by the consumer association. Regarding the accusation of prices deemed “too good to be true”, the refurbisher maintains, with screenshots in support, that “the consumer can have a quick and clear estimate of the savings made if he buys this refurbished product rather than the same new product.
Regarding service fees, Back Market indicates that they are billed “transparently” to its customers. Back Market specifies that they make it possible in particular to ensure quality controls and contribute to the financing of R&D programs.
Finally, concerning cookies, Back Market denies the observation of the association’s lawyers according to which “tracking cookies were deposited even though the Internet user had refused them”. Back Market declares that “if Internet users have effectively refused advertising cookies, these cookies are not deposited and the interests of Internet users are not “tracked”, in accordance with their wishes”. The refurbisher notes that “the advertisements displayed noted by the UFC lawyers are therefore probably non-targeted advertisements, which are not linked to the advertising cookies on the Back Market site”.
In conclusion of its response, Back Market says it “completely disagrees with these accusations” and the company indicates that it “will put forward its arguments within the framework of the procedure initiated by the UFC Que Choisir”.