Invalid terms are unfair terms, that is to say provisions causing a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations to the detriment of the consumer (Section 53 of the Civil Code). The law gives an illustrative list of them, and in e-shops they most often concern limitations of liability for defects and for damage, unilateral changes to the terms or the price, and disproportionate sanctions. Such a sentence does not bind the customer, and its mere use may attract a fine from the Slovak Trade Inspection. In the Czech Republic an unfair stipulation is disregarded unless the consumer invokes it.
An e-shop’s terms and conditions usually come about by assembly: part from an earlier project, part from a competitor, a few sentences added after an unpleasant complaint. Each of them may look sensible and still not bind the customer. What matters is whether it tilts the balance of the contract to the detriment of the consumer.
When a term is unfair
The Civil Code (Act No. 40/1964 Coll.) lays down the general rule:
Consumer contracts must not contain provisions which cause a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the contracting parties to the detriment of the consumer (hereinafter an “unfair term”).
— Section 53(1) of the Civil Code (unofficial English translation)
An exception applies to terms concerning the main subject-matter of the performance and the adequacy of the price, where these are expressed definitely, clearly and intelligibly, and to individually negotiated terms. With an e-shop, individual negotiation is practically out of the question: unless the trader proves otherwise, contractual provisions are not regarded as individually negotiated (Section 53(3)). To this is added the prohibition on departing from the law to the detriment of the consumer (Section 54(1)).
Which e-shop clauses most often fail
The list in Section 53(4) is illustrative; the law introduces it with the word “in particular”. For e-shops the following groups matter most:
- limitation of rights in respect of defects and damage (point (d)): “the courier is liable for damage in transit”, complaints only with a protocol drawn up with the courier on delivery, complaints only by email, or only in the original packaging,
- unilateral variation of the terms without a ground agreed in the contract (point (i)),
- setting or increasing the price only upon performance, without a right for the consumer to withdraw where the agreed price is substantially exceeded (point (j)),
- withdrawal by the trader without a contractual or statutory ground, where the consumer has no such right (point (f)),
- a disproportionately high sanction for the consumer’s failure to perform an obligation (point (k)),
- the trader deciding alone whether its performance conforms to the contract, or reserving the interpretation of the contract to itself (point (o)),
- shifting the burden of proof onto the consumer (point (l)).
In decision No. SK/0150/99/2023 of 20 April 2026, assessed still under the former consumer protection act, the Slovak Trade Inspection found unfair, among other things, making a complaint conditional on a protocol drawn up with the deliverer on receipt of the consignment, and also a requirement that complaints be made only by email. A sentence shifting responsibility for late delivery onto the carrier was examined in the question on remote inspection of an e-shop, and the requirement of a receipt and packaging in the question on a complaint without the receipt and original packaging.
What invalidity means
Unfair terms in consumer contracts are invalid under Section 53(5), so they do not bind the customer even if it agreed to the terms and conditions when ordering. The second layer is public supervision: the use of unfair terms is prohibited by Section 4(2)(b) of Act No. 108/2024 Coll. on consumer protection, and for a breach the supervisory authority may impose a fine from EUR 200 up to 2 % of turnover for the preceding accounting period, up to a maximum of EUR 200,000 (Section 43(1)(a)). Where a court declares a term invalid as unfair, the trader must refrain from it, and from terms of the same meaning, in contracts with all consumers (Section 53a(1) of the Civil Code). Where, in abstract review proceedings in consumer matters, a court orders a trader to refrain from using an unfair term and the trader continues to use it, the consumer protection act treats this as a particularly serious breach of duty; the supervisory authority may then, instead of imposing a sanction, refer the matter to the trade licensing office (Section 42(9) of Act No. 108/2024 Coll.).
The Czech version of the terms
The Czech Civil Code speaks of abusive stipulations and defines them similarly (Section 1813 of Act No. 89/2012 Coll.). Stipulations which exclude or limit a consumer’s rights arising from defective performance or to compensation for harm are always abusive (Section 1814(1)(a)). The consequence, however, is formulated differently: under Section 1815, an abusive stipulation is disregarded unless the consumer invokes it. Translating Slovak terms into Czech is therefore not enough; each version must be assessed under its own law.
How to proceed
Go through the terms and conditions, the complaints policy and the text on the delivery and returns pages, because inspectors assess everything the customer sees on the site. Replace sentences limiting statutory rights with the statutory rule or with an instruction carrying no sanction. You will receive a substantive list of risks ranked by seriousness as part of our review of terms and conditions. If the complaints section needs rewriting, we will prepare a complaints policy, and if the documents are unusable as a whole, new e-shop terms and conditions.
This answer provides general information on the law as at 12 September 2026. It does not constitute legal services or replace an assessment of an individual case. The details of your situation may differ. Book a consultation to discuss them.
