Back
Automatically translated version. May contain inaccuracies compared to the original.
🔍🧡🧡🧡🧡🧡🧡
The sota store website — a chain of electronics stores and an online store (declared activity with 2012, LLC “SOTA STORE”, EDRPOU 44836376, founder and beneficiary Kerimov Farid Aliagayovich, director Proskurin Maksym Volodymyrovych, address in Kharkiv).
The user agreement is presented as a public offer (Art. 633 of the Civil Code of Ukraine) between “SOTA STORE (Website Administration)” and the user.
Main risks to consumer rights
🔸Insufficient seller identification — there is no clear indication of the full legal entity name in the offer text itself. This complicates the exercise of consumer rights and may be considered a breach of the obligation to provide information about the seller.
🔸Additional fees for payment methods. The payment page explicitly lists surcharges:
✔️terminal +3 %
✔️current account +3 %
✔️WayForPay +2,2 %
✔️cash on delivery +1,8 % (for orders up to 25 thousand UAH)
Such surcharges may be classified as hidden or unfair terms, especially if they are not clearly reflected in the product price at the selection stage. The consumer has the right to know the total price before concluding the contract. There is also information that goods can possibly be paid for with cryptocurrency.
🔸Warranty limitations. It does not apply to batteries, chargers, housing parts, mechanical damage, water exposure, third-party interference with software, IMEI changes, etc. Some of the limitations are standard, but the wording “the seller is not liable for device performance in case of improper use” and the exclusion of many typical cases require verification for compliance with Art. 8 of the Law and the Retail Trade Rules.
🔒 What the State Consumer Service should pay attention to
✔️Compliance of the public offer with requirements regarding seller information (full name, EDRPOU, address, contacts).
✔️Pricing transparency (whether fees are included in the price or are separate conditions).
✔️Whether the return/exchange terms restrict consumer rights more than the law allows.
✔️Presence and content of fiscal receipts (RRO/PRRO) for sales at physical points and online.
✔️Practice of handling consumer claims (warranty cases, returns).
✔️Advertising of “original products” and conformity with the actual assortment (especially Apple and other branded equipment).
🔒What the State Bureau of Investigation should pay attention to
✔️use of a network of sole proprietors to split business and possible tax evasion.
✔️suspicions regarding sales without fiscal receipts / without RRO at physical locations.
✔️claims about “gray” import of equipment, possible cash or cryptocurrency settlements.
✔️links of certain sole proprietors with officials (mentions of relatives of officials and prosecutors — require separate verification).
💬ABleaks_bot
💕 Join
Telegram publication
