Sellers vs Ozon: FAS to inspect promos and competitors' ads in product cards

An antimonopoly angle is possible but harder to prove. According to the FAS analytical report for 2024, Ozon and Wildberries are recognized as dominant: both platforms with a network effect and a transaction share above 35% in monetary terms fall under a separate prohibition on abuse (Part 1, Article 10.1 of the law "On Protection of Competition"). The report is based on 2021–2023 data, which will have to be updated. If Ozon's position is confirmed, the change to promotion mechanics could be assessed as imposing unfavorable contract terms on a counterparty (Clause 3, Part 1, Article 10 of the Law). Such a review will not be quick.

Can damages be recovered from the marketplace?

Yes, but the lawsuit is not simple, Tsypnyatov warns. You need to prove:

• a violation of the law or the offer;
• the damage and its amount;
• a causal link between the violation and the damage.

Damage is usually calculated as the difference between the regular price and the promo price for units sold beyond the volume ready for discounted sale. The main difficulty is causation: Ozon may argue that the seller could have raised the maximum price at any moment. Prospects exist if the seller proves they tried to exit the promotion and the system failed or worked with a delay. That's why, from day one, it's worth saving screenshots of the account, price history, platform notifications, and correspondence with support.

The procedure is as follows: first, a mandatory claim to the platform — you can go to court 30 calendar days after sending it (Part 5, Article 4 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation). Then a lawsuit in an arbitration court under the jurisdiction rules in the offer. In parallel, you can file a complaint with the FAS: it will not award damages, but a finding of a violation will become a strong argument in court.

Conclusion: winning the dispute is realistic if a system delay is proven and evidence is collected.

Competitors' ads in product cards: what do lawyers say?

Andrei Pasynkov, president of the Union of Marketplace Sellers (SPM), has sent an appeal to the Presidential Administration of the Russian Federation, the FAS, and the State Duma Committee on Economic Policy, proposing to amend the law "On the Platform Economy" — to limit platforms' influence over prices, commissions, and search placement. The Union also opposes advertising direct competitors and "Similar products" and "Find cheaper" blocks inside cards of unique products.

The marketplace has the right to sell competitors advertising access to a card, explains Mikhail Bozhor, managing partner of the law firm "Afonin, Bozhor and Partners." A product card and the page where it is placed are not the same thing under the law. Moreover, a "similar products" block may not be considered advertising at all if the products in it look like ordinary assortment navigation (FAS letter dated June 18, 2026, No. AT/61279/26).

However, if the interface imperceptibly "steers" the buyer toward choosing a different product, the platform's actions may be deemed abuse of dominant position. Discrimination may include, for example, the ability to place ads in the card of a specific competitor rather than across similar products generally. Evidence would include screenshots of the ads and correspondence with the marketplace. There is no FAS practice on such violations yet.

Dmitry Seregin, counsel at the law firm "UST," considers comparative advertising a plus for competition, with a caveat: "Such comparative advertising must be accurate: information about the comparability of products must be truthful, and no counterfeit or pirated goods may be offered under the guise of an analogous product. If comparative advertising meets the established requirements, restricting it will weaken competition."

What has happened in court practice?

On October 14, 2026, the Supreme Court approved Review of Judicial Practice No. 3 for 2026. The document is useful to advertisers and owners of advertising structures. The Court noted that even if a logo or sign is not deemed advertising, the owner must comply with municipal improvement rules. In addition, a counterparty's consent to contract terms does not by itself preclude those terms from being recognized as imposed by a dominant market participant.

Conclusion: the year has begun shaping practice under the platform economy law, and the FAS's decisions on Ozon will become a benchmark for the market.