Refusal to accept an online-store return

For an online purchase, generally no: merely opening the packaging and reasonably trying the product does not remove the right of withdrawal. However, a shop can generally refuse the return of non-defective goods bought in a physical store.

The main distinction in the case law is this: the right to withdraw from a purchase is not the same as always being entitled to the full purchase price back. Excessive use may justify deducting a proved loss in value, rather than automatically refusing the return.

When can a shop refuse?

• An ordinary online purchase: a consumer generally has 14 days from receiving the goods to withdraw without giving a reason. You may examine the product to the extent ordinarily permitted in a shop. Opening the packaging is not, by itself, a ground for refusal. Legal basis: VÕS § 56(1) and (1¹) and § 56²(4). Law of Obligations Act

• Use beyond trying the product: for example, cleaning an entire apartment with a robot vacuum may exceed permissible examination. The shop must explain what reduction in value arose specifically from that use. If it did not properly inform you of the right of withdrawal, you are not liable for diminished value under § 56²(4). A general “opened packages cannot be returned” term cannot generally override the statutory right of withdrawal; see also VÕS § 62. VÕS § 56²(4) and § 62

• The hygiene exception: refusal may be allowed where goods were sealed, become unsuitable for return for health-protection or hygiene reasons after unsealing, and were unsealed after delivery. Merely opening a shipping box is insufficient. An exception also applies to unsealed audio or video recordings and computer software. Legal basis: VÕS § 53(4)(4¹) and (7). Not everything that touches the body automatically falls under the hygiene exception: for example, opening a mattress's protective wrapping does not prevent withdrawal. VÕS § 53(4); TTJA explanations

• A physical shop: there is no general obligation to take back non-defective goods. Returns then depend on the terms promised by the shop itself. TTJA: returning goods bought in a shop

• A defective product: this is a separate issue. Opening the packaging does not remove the right to make a claim about a defect; repair or replacement can generally be sought, and a refund in the circumstances specified by law. Legal basis: VÕS § 218(2), § 222(1) and § 223(1) and (5). Remedies for defective goods

What do the court decisions show?

1. Cleaning with a robot vacuum: a return was allowed, but not a full refund

Harju County Court, 7 May 2026, 2-26-5018, paragraphs 25–33. A consumer bought a €705 robot vacuum online and used it to dry- and wet-clean an apartment. The seller offered to return only €305.21, deducting, among other things, diagnostics, replacement accessories and a fall in market price. The court ordered repayment of €599.25, plus €16.16 in accrued late-payment interest and continuing interest.

The court found that cleaning the whole dwelling exceeded ordinary testing, and scratches and dents justified a 15% reduction in value in that case. The remaining deductions were not substantiated. The point relevant to your question is that use did not prevent withdrawal, and the seller could not simply pass on its own costs of diagnostics and preparing the product for resale. 15% is not a general statutory return fee.

2. Using a laptop and installing software did not prove diminished value

Tallinn Circuit Court, 11 January 2021, 2-20-5394, paragraphs 7–9. A laptop order was agreed by email, but the computer was collected from a shop. The consumer returned it a few days later. The seller argued that it had been used, software had been installed and there were crumbs on the keyboard. The seller lost the dispute in which it sought to avoid an obligation to refund €1598.

The court stressed that collection from the shop did not turn an agreement made by email into an in-store purchase. Installing software and photographs of the keyboard did not, by themselves, prove diminished value; the consumer also had not been properly informed of the right of withdrawal. The conclusion for you is that “the product has been tried” is insufficient justification for withholding money.

3. Alleged micro-scratches on a phone: the seller's claim was unproved

Harju County Court, 12 January 2018, 2-16-16608, paragraphs 15–21. A consumer returned a phone two days after receiving it. The seller claimed €64 for diminished value or repair, €24.90 for an expert assessment and €38.67 in late-payment interest — a total of €127.57. The court dismissed the entire claim.

The return record did not adequately document the phone's condition. Later photographs and expert evidence did not reliably establish that the scratches were on that particular phone and resulted from the consumer's excessive use. This shows why it is worth photographing the product and packaging before returning them: the seller must prove its allegation of damage.

4. A damaged washing machine: damage does not automatically remove the right of withdrawal

Tallinn Circuit Court, 21 April 2017, 2-16-15405, paragraphs 3–5 and 11–13. Dents were discovered when the packaging of an online-purchased washing machine was opened. The seller argued that the damage occurred during transport arranged by the buyer. The court upheld an order requiring the seller to repay the €274 purchase price, €6.27 in accrued late-payment interest and continuing interest.

The circuit court additionally explained that even damage occurring while goods are in the consumer's possession does not, by itself, extinguish an existing 14-day right of withdrawal. A possible diminished-value claim must be dealt with separately; the seller had made no such claim in this case. Thus, refusing a return must be distinguished from making a justified monetary deduction.

5. Defects discovered on opening: withdrawal may also be possible for an in-store purchase

Harju County Court, 6 June 2018, 2-17-3989, paragraphs 15–19. On opening the packaging of a gas water heater bought in a shop, the buyer found that instructions and fittings were missing and the appliance contained water. It did not work. The seller claimed that the buyer had damaged it through incompetent installation. The court ordered the seller to refund €330.

The court found that the buyer had not installed the heater and the seller had not proved a fault caused by the buyer. The defects justified withdrawal in that case. For your question, the connection is this: if trying the product revealed a defect, you need not rely solely on the shop's voluntary returns policy or the 14-day right of withdrawal.

6. Withdrawal must be clearly communicated in time

Harju County Court, 6 September 2019, 2-18-18256, paragraphs 10–14 and 18–24. A robot vacuum bought online was received on 9 February, but the buyer relied on a withdrawal notice given on 26 February. The court considered the 14-day period to have ended on 23 February. The requirements for withdrawal because of a defect were also unmet in those proceedings: the buyer had not made the replacement appliance available for the seller to inspect. The €387.98 claim was dismissed, and the buyer was ordered to pay €1340 in procedural costs.

The practical lesson is to send an unambiguous withdrawal notice within the deadline. The court also found that replacement with the same model did not start a fresh 14-day withdrawal period in that case. Current claims concerning defective goods must be assessed under the present VÕS §§ 222–223.

What should you do now?

If this is an ordinary online purchase and the deadline has not passed, immediately send a written notice: “I withdraw from the sales contract for order no. …” The goods must generally be sent back within 14 days after giving notice of withdrawal. If the shop refuses or reduces the refund, ask for the specific legal basis and a calculation and evidence of the diminished value. VÕS § 56(2¹)–(2²) and § 56²(1). Withdrawal and return deadlines

**What product is it, did you buy it online or in a physical shop, and how many days have passed since you received it?