In short. For an online contract involving payment, the ordering button must unambiguously convey the payment obligation, with explicit acknowledgment when ordering.
Definition: For an online contract involving payment, the ordering button must communicate unambiguously that placing the order creates an obligation to pay the trader. Article 8(2) of the Consumer Rights Directive requires the consumer to acknowledge that obligation explicitly when ordering; failure to meet this acknowledgment requirement leaves the consumer unbound by the contract or order.
Key facts
- In the Consumer Rights Directive consolidated on 27 September 2026, Article 8(2) requires an easily legible label stating “order with obligation to pay” or a corresponding unambiguous formulation.
- The Court of Justice's Fuhrmann-2 judgment assesses acknowledgment by reference to the words on the ordering button or similar function alone.
- The Court's Conny judgment applies the requirement even when payment depends on a subsequent condition.
What wording must appear on the button?
Article 8(2) of the Consumer Rights Directive covers distance contracts concluded electronically that place the consumer under an obligation to pay. It expressly covers both a button and a similar function used to place the order. The label must be easily legible and contain only the prescribed wording or a corresponding unambiguous formulation indicating the payment obligation.
An illustrative HTML button using the Directive's English wording is:
<button type="submit">order with obligation to pay</button>
The Court explains in paragraph 26 of Fuhrmann-2 that the prescribed phrase serves as an example. Member States may permit other corresponding formulations, provided they unambiguously communicate the creation of the payment obligation.
Can the rest of checkout clarify an ambiguous label?
In its Fuhrmann-2 judgment of 7 April 2022, Case C-249/21, the Court considers the wording “complete booking” in an online hotel reservation process. Paragraph 28 says that only the words appearing on the button or similar function count when assessing whether the trader satisfies the explicit acknowledgment requirement.
The Court leaves the assessment of that particular formulation in German to the referring court. Paragraph 33 asks whether “booking” is necessarily and systematically associated with a payment obligation, both in everyday language and in the understanding of the reasonably informed, observant and circumspect average consumer. If that association is absent, “complete booking” is ambiguous under the rule.
Does the rule cover payment that depends on a later event?
In Conny, decided on 30 May 2024, Case C-400/22, the Court addresses a website contract for asserting a tenant's rights against a landlord. Its ruling applies the acknowledgment requirement even where the consumer must pay only after a subsequent condition is satisfied.
Paragraph 47 locates the information obligation at the point when the consumer accepts an irrevocable obligation to pay if a condition outside the consumer's control is fulfilled. Paragraph 52 explains that postponing the information until payment becomes due would provide it after the consumer's opportunity to abandon the order.
Related terms
FAQ
Must I use the Directive's exact English phrase?
Article 8(2) of the Consumer Rights Directive also allows a corresponding unambiguous formulation. Your label must clearly indicate that placing the order entails an obligation to pay the trader.
What happens if the acknowledgment requirement is breached?
Under Article 8(2), second subparagraph, of the Consumer Rights Directive, the consumer is not bound by the contract or order.
Can the consumer subsequently choose to maintain the contract?
Paragraph 55 of Conny preserves that possibility after the consumer receives subsequent information about the payment obligation.
Sources
- European Parliament and Council, "Directive 2011/83/EU on consumer rights", consolidated 27 September 2026
- Court of Justice of the European Union, "Fuhrmann-2, Case C-249/21", 7 April 2022
- Court of Justice of the European Union, "VT and UR v Conny GmbH, Case C-400/22", 30 May 2024
Check how a page reads to answer engines. Open the GEO score analyzer