Robokassa - violators of the law on the protection of competition and the Puritans of the XXI century?
To start 2 quotes
Liked? Want more? I have the second quote entirely and other snacks under the cut.
We have a customer. His name is Sergei. He is a well-mannered, intelligent and law-abiding person, suitable for my fathers.
Sergey has several sex shops. We made him an online store for sale in the network of relevant products.
As a payment system Robokassa was supposed, on the site of which it is indicated that sites that violate the laws of the Russian Federation are not connected. This is the only published requirement for participants.
Sergey's business does not violate the laws of the Russian Federation. Its stores have existed for more than 10 years, they keep records of goods, all payments are made through the cashier, all video, photo products and books have certificates, rental IDs and conclusions of expert commissions for the evaluation of sexual products.
The rental certificates were signed by the Deputy Ministers of Culture of the Russian Federation, and expert opinions by reputable sexologists, lawyers, art historians, candidates and doctors of science.
This is a white normal ethical business, and its site is relevant.
When the site was completed and filled with goods, Sergei turned to Robokassa with a connection request.
')
The connection was denied on the grounds that Robokassa is not sure that pornography will NOT appear on the site in the DVD section that violates the laws of the Russian Federation.
It is difficult to argue with such an argument, but “to be afraid of the teeth — don't go to the forest”!
In my opinion, the following is important:
1. Laws are not violated and will not be violated. This is not a virtual business, there are several offline outlets.
2. A contract will be concluded where the store owner (IP, which strengthens his responsibility) will sign and accept responsibility for further trade.
3. It is ridiculous to fear that certified erotic SUDDENLY will become pornography. With the same success, an online store selling optics can start selling rifles with a telescopic sight, which Robokassa will not be able to control
4. Even if the laws are violated and a criminal case is initiated to distribute child pornography and other nastiness, it is simply impossible to prove the guilt of Robokassa and attract her for complicity because the service does not control the assortment during the shop
5. Robokassa (specifically, the support employee Oksana Nesterets) is easier to refuse to accept a specific store without good reason than to jeopardize (what, we ask ???) the rest of its customers.
6. Refusal to accept violates:
- The rules of the Robokassa itself
- Sergey’s legal rights as the owner of a normal white business selling certified products to use an electronic payment system
- The interests of buyers who want to buy such delicate products through the Internet that do not violate any laws
- The notorious "laws of the Russian Federation." Under antitrust laws, if you are ready to conclude an agreement with one market participant, you do not have the right to refuse to provide services to another market participant who is willing to work with you on your terms: pay, comply with published requirements, etc.
7. According to our lawyer, whom I trust, the refusal is a violation of antitrust laws, in particular the “Law on Protection of Competition”.
That's all.
I am sure that the actions described by the respected Robokassa service are puritanism, reinsurance and stupidity. The arguments are ridiculous, picky is unjustified.
In this situation, everyone suffers: Sergey, his clients, we as contractors and Robokassa itself, who lost at least one client.
We will be forced to continue to work with other companies that pursue a more adequate policy when checking sites.
At the moment, a written proposal has been sent to conclude a contract or inform about the presence of significant obstacles to this. In case of refusal, we will recommend to Sergey to go to court with a claim for violation of the Federal Law of July 26, 2006 No. 135- “On Protection of Competition”
Selection of citations of laws (1251)
Ps. Boring post? Lift your spirits, read the opinion of the Commission for expert evaluation of products of a sexual nature.
Page 1
Page 2 - especially delivers
Page 3
Puritanism is a way of life characterized by extreme strictness of morals and ascetic restriction of needs.
The members of the expert commission, having reviewed the submitted material, came to the following conclusions:
All persons involved in the films are sexually mature people (on anthropometric and physiological grounds) , there is no showing of sex scenes involving children. There is no showing of sexual activity with animals and corpses, no display of scenes of sexual violence.
In general, videos are professionally made and correspond to samples of sexual products.
Criminal pornography materials do not include
Liked? Want more? I have the second quote entirely and other snacks under the cut.
We have a customer. His name is Sergei. He is a well-mannered, intelligent and law-abiding person, suitable for my fathers.
Sergey has several sex shops. We made him an online store for sale in the network of relevant products.
As a payment system Robokassa was supposed, on the site of which it is indicated that sites that violate the laws of the Russian Federation are not connected. This is the only published requirement for participants.
Sergey's business does not violate the laws of the Russian Federation. Its stores have existed for more than 10 years, they keep records of goods, all payments are made through the cashier, all video, photo products and books have certificates, rental IDs and conclusions of expert commissions for the evaluation of sexual products.
The rental certificates were signed by the Deputy Ministers of Culture of the Russian Federation, and expert opinions by reputable sexologists, lawyers, art historians, candidates and doctors of science.
This is a white normal ethical business, and its site is relevant.
When the site was completed and filled with goods, Sergei turned to Robokassa with a connection request.
')
The connection was denied on the grounds that Robokassa is not sure that pornography will NOT appear on the site in the DVD section that violates the laws of the Russian Federation.
It is difficult to argue with such an argument, but “to be afraid of the teeth — don't go to the forest”!
In my opinion, the following is important:
1. Laws are not violated and will not be violated. This is not a virtual business, there are several offline outlets.
2. A contract will be concluded where the store owner (IP, which strengthens his responsibility) will sign and accept responsibility for further trade.
3. It is ridiculous to fear that certified erotic SUDDENLY will become pornography. With the same success, an online store selling optics can start selling rifles with a telescopic sight, which Robokassa will not be able to control
4. Even if the laws are violated and a criminal case is initiated to distribute child pornography and other nastiness, it is simply impossible to prove the guilt of Robokassa and attract her for complicity because the service does not control the assortment during the shop
5. Robokassa (specifically, the support employee Oksana Nesterets) is easier to refuse to accept a specific store without good reason than to jeopardize (what, we ask ???) the rest of its customers.
6. Refusal to accept violates:
- The rules of the Robokassa itself
- Sergey’s legal rights as the owner of a normal white business selling certified products to use an electronic payment system
- The interests of buyers who want to buy such delicate products through the Internet that do not violate any laws
- The notorious "laws of the Russian Federation." Under antitrust laws, if you are ready to conclude an agreement with one market participant, you do not have the right to refuse to provide services to another market participant who is willing to work with you on your terms: pay, comply with published requirements, etc.
7. According to our lawyer, whom I trust, the refusal is a violation of antitrust laws, in particular the “Law on Protection of Competition”.
That's all.
I am sure that the actions described by the respected Robokassa service are puritanism, reinsurance and stupidity. The arguments are ridiculous, picky is unjustified.
In this situation, everyone suffers: Sergey, his clients, we as contractors and Robokassa itself, who lost at least one client.
We will be forced to continue to work with other companies that pursue a more adequate policy when checking sites.
At the moment, a written proposal has been sent to conclude a contract or inform about the presence of significant obstacles to this. In case of refusal, we will recommend to Sergey to go to court with a claim for violation of the Federal Law of July 26, 2006 No. 135- “On Protection of Competition”
Selection of citations of laws (1251)
Ps. Boring post? Lift your spirits, read the opinion of the Commission for expert evaluation of products of a sexual nature.
Page 1
Page 2 - especially delivers
Page 3
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/105986/
All Articles