The Netherlands: New EU Withdrawal Button Requirement and CJEU Referral on Order Button Compliance

Numerous lower court judgments have been issued concerning the use of order buttons in the Netherlands, following the Dutch Supreme Court's October 2024 ruling in the Bol.com case. Bol.com is one of the largest online e-commerce platforms in the Netherlands. On 6 January 2026, the Amsterdam District Court referred preliminary questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) regarding the order button requirement. Given the possibility that the CJEU may prescribe a stricter sanction for violations of the order button obligation, traders should critically review their online ordering processes. This is particularly relevant since traders who offer an online ordering process will shortly also be required to ensure that a consumer can withdraw from the contract by using a withdrawal function, which is subject to strict requirements. This new requirement follows from the amended Consumer Rights Directive (2011/83/EU) and applies as of 19 June 2026.

The New Withdrawal Button Requirements

The mandatory withdrawal function will be introduced through a new Article 11a of the Consumer Rights Directive (Directive 2011/83/EU). This new Article 11a of the Consumer Rights Directive requires traders to ensure that consumers can withdraw from a contract concluded via an online interface by using a withdrawal function, which must be labelled in an easily legible manner with the words "withdraw from the contract here" or an unambiguous corresponding formulation. The withdrawal function must be continuously available, clearly visible and easily accessible for the consumer throughout the withdrawal period. Pursuant to Article 11 a, the withdrawal function must enable a consumer to send an online withdrawal statement informing the trader of his or her decision to withdraw from the contract. That online withdrawal statement shall enable the consumer to easily provide or confirm certain mandatory information, including the consumer’s contact details and the details of the contract that will be withdrawn.

Once the consumer has completed the online withdrawal statement, the trader must subsequently enable the consumer to submit the statement by means of a confirmation function, i.e., a second functionality. The confirmation function shall be labelled, in accordance with Article 11a of the Consumer Rights Directive, in an easily legible manner with the words “confirm withdrawal” or with an unambiguous corresponding formulation. As a last step, the trader is required to confirm receipt of the withdrawal to the consumer on a durable medium.

In the Netherlands, the relevant obligations will be implemented in a new Article 6:230oa of the Dutch Civil Code (“DCC”), which requires traders to provide a clearly visible and easily accessible withdrawal function on the online interface, and mandates that once the consumer has completed the withdrawal statement, the trader must enable the consumer to confirm the submission of the withdrawal statement via a second button or comparable functionality.

The specific wording as suggested by Article 11a of the Consumer Rights Directive for both the withdrawal function and the confirmation function has not been adopted in the Dutch Civil Code, which only requires that the buttons are labelled in a clearly readable manner with an unambiguous formulation indicating that the contract can be withdrawn respectively the withdrawal can be confirmed. Given the numerous judgments on the wording requirements for order buttons, as discussed below, it is unlikely that all alternative wordings of similar meaning will comply with the new Article 6:230oa DCC.

If a trader fails to provide information about the withdrawal function, the withdrawal period will be extended until the information is provided (up to a maximum of twelve months). The new withdrawal function requirements must be applied from 19 June 2026.

The Order Button Bol.com Case

On 4 October 2024, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled in the Bol.com case that order buttons labelled "place order," "order," or "complete order" do not fulfil the requirements applicable to order buttons as included in Article 6:230v (3) DCC. Bol.com is one of the largest online e-commerce platforms in the Netherlands. The Court found that such wording alone is insufficient for the average consumer to realize they are committing to pay, allowing consumers to fully or partially annul the purchase agreement. 

The Dutch Supreme Court ruled that full annulment can only be applied if the consumer does not object. In cases where the consumer does not appear in court (default judgments), the court may only partially annul the contract by reducing the consumer’s payment obligation. As a general guideline, the Supreme Court suggested a one-third reduction of the consumer’s payment obligation (i.e., a ‘discount’), though courts may adjust this in individual cases. 

Following the Dutch Supreme Court's ruling in the Bol.com case, numerous lower court judgments have been issued concerning the use of order buttons in the Netherlands. These rulings emphasize that using the correct wording for the order button is very important. Examples of order button texts that do not comply with the obligation, according to these rulings, include “Confirm”, “Send”, “Sign up now”, “Confirm your request”, “Complete order”, and “Continue”.  Violations of the requirements pertaining to the withdrawal button as included in Article 6:230v (3) DCC have been sanctioned differently in the lower court rulings. Most published rulings are default judgments, where the consumer’s payment obligation is reduced by 33% to 60%. 

CJEU Referral on Order Button Consequences

In a preliminary ruling of 6 January 2026, the Amsterdam District Court decided to request the Court of Justice of the European Union to answer three preliminary questions concerning a case where an order button displaying only the text “Send” clearly did not comply with the requirements of Article 6:230v (3) DCC. 

The Amsterdam Court observed that applying the Supreme Court's Bol.com ruling would result in the consumer's payment obligation continuing to exist for two-thirds, meaning a substantial part of the claim would still be granted. The Amsterdam Court noted that when a consumer must still pay largely for the order despite the violation of Article 6:230v(3) DCC, the consumer is afforded less protection than the consumer protection following from Article 8(2) of the Consumer Rights Directive and the CJEU's Fuhrmann and Conny judgments.

The Amsterdam Court asked the CJEU whether Article 8(2) of the Consumer Rights Directive precludes ordering a consumer to pay for part of an order when the order button does not comply with requirements (and whether it matters if the product or service was actually delivered), whether the consumer must return products or pay compensation for services used, and whether it matters if the consumer appeared in proceedings or defaulted.

Implications for Traders

With the Amsterdam Court's preliminary referral, the current legal landscape may change, as the CJEU could find that a consumer, who must still pay two-thirds of the payment price in a default case despite a violation of the order button requirements, does not enjoy the minimum level of consumer protection prescribed by EU law. Depending on the CJEU's exact judgment, courts in default cases where the order button does not comply, may need to apply a higher reduction to the consumer's payment obligation, or even completely annul it.

Given the possibility that the CJEU may prescribe a stricter sanction for violations of the order button obligation, traders should critically review their online ordering processes, particularly as they will shortly face both order button and withdrawal button obligations that must be adequately implemented.