Renting an e-scooter or electric bike usually takes only a few minutes. The user opens an app, selects a vehicle, starts the ride and pays for the time spent using the service. From the consumer’s perspective, it is a fast and convenient form of urban transport. Problems may arise, however, when something does not go according to plan: the app stops working, the ride is not properly ended, the vehicle turns out to be faulty or damage occurs.
Tomasz Chróstny, President of Poland’s Office of Competition and Consumer Protection, has launched proceedings concerning provisions in standard contract terms used by Bolt Operations OÜ. The case concerns the terms for renting e-scooters and electric bikes accepted by users when creating an account in the app. UOKiK has challenged a total of 22 provisions that may infringe consumer rights.
The allegations primarily concern the company’s ability to unilaterally amend the terms and conditions, limit its liability for the functioning of the app and shift onto users the risks related to the technical condition of the vehicles made available.
A “one-click” service, but long-term terms and conditions
E-scooter and electric bike rentals are services that consumers often use spontaneously. The decision to take a ride is made quickly, and acceptance of the terms and conditions is often treated as a formality. Yet the terms of service define not only the price and the way the vehicle may be used, but also the responsibilities of each party in the event of problems.
The President of UOKiK points out that the convenience of using an app must not mean transferring all risk to the consumer.
“‘One-click’ services cannot operate in such a way that convenience is on the company’s side and risk is on the consumer’s side. Terms and conditions cannot be a switch that allows a business to freely change the rules after an account has already been created, and then wash its hands of responsibility in the event of a failure. If a ride is billed by the minute, the terms must not shift the entire risk to the consumer in the event of problems with the app or equipment,” said Tomasz Chróstny, President of UOKiK.
Changes to terms through continued use of the service
One of the Office’s main concerns relates to provisions allowing Bolt Operations OÜ to unilaterally change the terms of the contract after a user has registered in the app. According to the terms, the company could modify the conditions, among other reasons, “as the services develop”, informing the user of the changes at least 15 days in advance, for example by email.
If the user continued to use the service after the changes entered into force, this would mean acceptance of the new terms. Lack of consent, in turn, would lead to resignation from the service and closure of the account. One earlier version of the terms also provided that the contract could be changed “at any time”, with the new conditions applying from the moment they were published on the website or in the app.
According to the President of UOKiK, merely informing the consumer about a change and allowing them to resign from the service is not sufficient. The contract should clearly specify when, for what important reasons and to what extent the business may change the terms and conditions. Otherwise, the consumer has no real certainty as to the stability of the conditions they accepted when creating the account.
Liability for the functioning of the app
Another group of challenged provisions concerns liability for the functioning of the app. In e-scooter and electric bike rental services, the app is an essential element. It is through the app that the user locates the vehicle, starts the ride, ends it and settles the fee.
According to UOKiK, provisions may be problematic where the business states that it is not responsible for damage or losses resulting from the app not working or from the inability to use it “in the desired way”. In practice, incorrect functioning of the app may have specific financial consequences for the consumer.
An example would be a situation in which the user is unable to end the ride in the app, while charges continue to accrue. If the terms and conditions exclude the company’s liability for such events, the consumer may be charged costs over which they had no real control.
Technical condition of e-scooters and bikes
The Office’s concerns also relate to provisions concerning the technical condition of the vehicles made available. The terms included clauses stating that e-scooters and bikes are provided to the user “as they are”.
Such a provision may be important from the perspective of liability for possible failures, defects or accidents. A consumer renting a vehicle from a public space is not always able to thoroughly assess its technical condition before starting a ride. They also have no knowledge of whether a defect had arisen earlier.
In UOKiK’s view, a business cannot simply shift all risk related to equipment it provides as part of a paid service onto the user. The consumer should have the right to expect that an e-scooter or bike is suitable for safe use in accordance with its intended purpose.
Damage caused to third parties
UOKiK also challenged clauses relating to liability for damage caused to third parties. According to the terms, if another person suffers injury or damage while the service is being used, the person driving the vehicle is liable. If the company were required to cover the injured party’s claims, the user would have to reimburse the company for the costs incurred.
Such provisions may lead to a situation in which the consumer is held financially liable even where the cause of the incident was not solely on their side. This could involve, for example, a vehicle failure, a technical defect or a problem with the system operating the service.
The Office does not question the principle that a user is responsible for their own conduct while riding. The problem, however, lies in the automatic and broad transfer of liability to the consumer without taking into account the circumstances of a particular incident.
Possible consequences for the company
The proceedings conducted by the President of UOKiK concern the recognition of specific provisions in standard contract terms as prohibited clauses. If the allegations are confirmed, the President of the Office may prohibit the use of the challenged clauses.
The company may also face a financial penalty of up to 10% of its annual turnover. The regulations also provide for the possibility of imposing a fine on a managing person if they intentionally allowed consumer rights to be infringed. In such a case, the penalty may amount to as much as PLN 2 million.
At this stage, the case does not yet mean that an infringement has been established. The proceedings are intended to determine whether the challenged provisions actually infringe the collective interests of consumers and whether they should be removed from the terms and conditions.
A broader problem in the digital services market
The Bolt case forms part of a wider debate on the rules for providing digital services and urban mobility services. More and more everyday activities are carried out through apps: ordering rides, renting vehicles, shopping, making reservations or paying. Consumers often accept terms and conditions quickly, without analysing them in detail.
For businesses, this means the need to draft contract terms in a transparent, understandable way that complies with consumer rights. Terms and conditions should not be a tool for unilaterally changing the rules or excluding liability for key elements of the service.
UOKiK indicates that a business cannot build its operating model in such a way that the benefits of simplicity and automation remain on the company’s side, while technical, financial and legal risks are shifted onto the user.
Not UOKiK’s first intervention in similar cases
The action against Bolt Operations OÜ is another example of UOKiK’s interest in the terms and conditions of widely used services. The Office previously reported, among other things, on the Nextbike Polska case, which concerned unlawful changes to terms and conditions and the charging of additional fees to customers.
This shows that the review of standard contract terms is important not only in traditional financial, telecommunications or energy services, but also in new business models based on mobile applications. In such services, the terms and conditions often replace direct contact with the business, which is why their content is crucial for consumer protection.
