In its decisions of 8 October 2024, the Supreme Court held that the Finnish branch of the credit companies Blue Finance Suomi Oy and Bondora AS had violated the price regulation for credit companies under the Consumer Protection Act. The companies had charged consumers various costs when offering credit, but these were not included in the maximum credit cost. The arrangements used to offer credit meant that consumers had to pay more for the credit they took out than was allowed under the Consumer Protection Act.
The services offered by the credit companies allowed consumers, for a separate fee, to make changes to the payment schedule, repay credit early, receive priority customer service and receive messages concerning the management of the credit or receive a paper invoice by post. The credit companies justified their arrangements, among other things, on the grounds that the services they called “additional services” were optional for consumers.
In December 2022, the Market Court ruled that Blue Finance Finland had breached price regulation on credit, following a claim by the Consumer Ombudsman. In September 2023, however, the Market Court rejected a similar claim by the Consumer Ombudsman against Bondora AS, but for different services. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in both cases.
The Supreme Court assessed the question of whether the fees charged for the services of the credit companies should be considered credit costs within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act and whether there were therefore grounds for imposing a prohibition.
According to the Supreme Court, what was relevant was that the services covered by the arrangements were part of a package of contracts based on a consumer credit relationship and the payments for them were
by nature the type that consumers have to make in connection with the credit agreement and the consumer credit relationship. The fees charged for the services should have been regarded as payments that consumers had to make as a result of the consumer-credit relationship within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act. It did not matter whether the underlying service was voluntary or compulsory.
The Supreme Court’s decisions that the services provided by the companies were covered by the statutory credit costs also meant that the companies’ arrangements had breached the Consumer Protection Act’s regulation on maximum credit costs.
The Supreme Court did not change the decision of the Market Court against Blue Finance Finland, which prohibited the company from continuing unlawful pricing of consumer credit, on pain of a fine of EUR 100 000. The Supreme Court imposed an enhanced prohibition on Bondora following a claim made by the Consumer Ombudsman to the Market Court in January 2023.
When the interest rate ceiling is exceeded, consumers who have concluded such a credit agreement are not obliged to pay any credit costs. This also applies retroactively: if a consumer has already paid credit costs, these payments must be deducted from the principal of the credit and the consumer is entitled to a refund of their payments exceeding the principal of the credit.
“Consumers should complain to Blue Finance Finland and Bondora AS to get the redress they are entitled to under the law. You can claim compensation for both existing and already repaid credit agreements.”
With regard to Bondora, the price regulation was breached in consumer credit agreements concluded after 1 September 2019, possibly until the Supreme Court’s decision. As regards Blue Finance, price regulation was breached at least in consumer credit agreements concluded after 1 January 2021 in connection with the offer of the Arkilaina and Satanen loans.
Further information
Complaint Assistant for Bondora
Supreme Court decisions KKO:2024:58 and KKO:2024:59 (in Finnish)
Market Court decisions MAO:H386/2022 and MAO:424/2023 (in Finnish)