On 17 June 2026, the Economic Collegium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation issued a judgment in case No. A07-5689/2025.
The dispute arose over a common e-commerce marketing mechanism: a user of the online store Sela received a personalised discount in exchange for providing an email address and consenting to receive promotional mailings. The product could, however, be purchased at the full price without participating in the promotion.
The Bashkortostan Office of the Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS Russia), followed by the courts of three instances, concluded that such consent could not be regarded as voluntary, as it constituted a mandatory condition for receiving the discount. In their view, the consumer's intention was directed at obtaining an economic benefit, rather than at receiving advertising.
The Economic collegium of the Supreme Court took the opposite view.
The key takeaway from the judgment is not that businesses have been "allowed to offer discounts for subscriptions”. Rather, the Supreme Court has effectively proposed a new interpretation of the criterion of voluntariness of consent under Article 18 of the Advertising Law.
The Court recalled that the requirement for prior consent is based on the presumption that advertising is initially unwanted by the consumer.
At the same time, consent may be motivated not only by a desire to receive advertising communications, but also by some other economic benefit, for which the consumer consciously agrees to change their initial unwillingness to receive advertising.
In other words, the consumer's motivation does not, in itself, determine the validity of consent.
What matters legally is whether the consent was given freely, knowingly, and unambiguously.
📌 Of particular interest is the civil-law reasoning of the Supreme Court. Referring to Constitutional Court Ruling No. 14-P of 3 April 2023 “Case concerning the review of the constitutionality of paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 428 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, upon the complaint of citizen K.V. Matyushov”, the Court stated that the law does not prohibit the provision of targeted discounts in exchange for consent to receive advertising.
Such a model does not contravene the law, provided that the consent meets the requirements of Article 18 of the Advertising Law and is the result of the purchaser's free will.
For fashion retail, this ruling has practical significance. Most modern digital tools — welcome discounts, loyalty programmes, personalised offers, and newsletter subscriptions — are based on an exchange of value for the user's consent to enter into further communication with the brand.
At the same time, the Supreme Court did not abolish the requirements for obtaining consent. On the contrary, it confirmed that consent must be independent, intelligible, unambiguous, expressed through active actions by the user, and accompanied by the ability to withdraw from further advertising communications at any time.