CRITERIA FOR QUALIFYING CONSUMER RIGHTS ABUSE: DOCTRINE, LEGISLATION, JUDICIAL PRACTICE

The article proposes and substantiates a system of five criteria for qualifying consumer rights abuse: subjective (purpose other than restoring a violated right), objective (disproportionality of claims to actual damage), temporal (systematic similar claims), procedural (exploitation of informational asymmetry in proceedings) and integrative (cumulative assessment of circumstances). Based on critical analysis of judicial practice from 2019–2024, including legal positions of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and federal circuit arbitration courts, as well as doctrinal studies by V. P. Gribanov, S. V. Musarskii, E. Yu. Usol’tsev, etc., it is demonstrated that isolated application of individual criteria leads to judicial errors: the subjective criterion  generally cannot be directly proven, the temporal criterion alone cannot serve as grounds for concluding abuse, the procedural criterion requires mandatory contextual analysis. The impact of e-commerce development and marketplace expansion on consumer extremism is examined. It is argued that only cumulative assessment through the integrative criterion ensures correct qualification of bad-faith consumer behavior. The proposed system may be used in developing Supreme Court Plenum guidelines, particularly by supplementing Resolution No. 17 of June 28, 2012 and in improving consumer protection legislation.